Bloody Hedgehog posted:

And what? The tow-truck would've had to report the malfeasance to The High Tow Council, getting your manager in a whole mess of trouble, what with the inevitable tribunal and all.

Phanatic posted:

In today's example of "Safety is Complicated":

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Teen-Injured-in-Crash-One-Week-Ago-Dies--458552823.html

Completely sober driver T-bones another car and kills the driver because the anti-drunk-driving interlock on his car requires him to periodically breathe into it in order to keep driving.

Wikpedia - Ignition interlock device posted:

If the breath sample isn't provided, or the sample exceeds the ignition interlock's preset blood alcohol level, the device will log the event, warn the driver, and then start up an alarm (e.g., lights flashing, horn honking) until the ignition is turned off, or a clean breath sample has been provided. A common misconception is that interlock devices will simply turn off the engine if alcohol is detected; this would, however, create an unsafe driving situation and expose interlock manufacturers to considerable liability

SpacePig posted:

I could've sworn these things only mattered at initial ignition, or at the very worst at extended stops. Sort of ridiculous that your car might shut down on you as you're driving.

e: Oh, huh:


So the guy could've pulled over to do it, or done it at the next stop sign or light or something. Pretty bad call on his part, it seem like.

Baronjutter posted:

Looks like she blindly backed out into traffic. Although it's insane this guy was blowing his thingy while driving rather than pulling over.

`Nemesis posted:

Ah yup, it's a year old. I guess I missed it.

quote:

Then there’s the Jacksonville, Fla., couple who decided to try Uber for Saturday night dinner and drinks with friends. The driver had a 4.8 rating with customers, so they were “hopeful.”

The wife, Charlene Hewitt, recounted the incident on the website UberPeople.net, which describes itself as an independent community of ride-share drivers.

It was June. From the back seat of the car, Charlene Hewitt, 33, spotted a camera mounted to the dashboard.

“He said, ‘Yeah, it takes my picture and uploads it when I blow in here.’ I hadn’t noticed the Breathalyzer from the back seat.

“When we were almost to our destination, it started beeping. He had to blow and hum into the thing for what seemed like an eternity, almost missing our turn in the process. He has to do this every 20 minutes.”

Pander posted:

If it weren't classist I'd say just require drunk driving convicts to drive smart cars. T-boning somebody in a smart car probably doesn't kill them like a pickup does.

e. or motorcycles. Then if they drink and drive odds are they're just taking themselves out of society when they gently caress up.

Powershift posted:

Or maybe after they do it like, 3 times, just tell them they can't drive anymore?

Phanatic posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...m=.e9590f00600a


I can see a bunch of reasons why you wouldn't want to pull your car over at whatever arbitrary time the interlock devices tells you to. This guy, driving through a residential area, probably didn't have that excuse, but if you're designing this kind of thing to be used by a bunch of people in a bunch of circumstances you need to appreciate what people will actually do with it, even if you tell them not to do that.

Farmdizzle posted:

Interlocks usually require a sample to start the engine, and then another about 10 or so minutes later, and then roughly every hour after that while the engine is running. This is so the driver can't have a sober person start the car for them so they drunkenly drive away, or pound down a few "road sodas" on a long trip.

When it's time for the next sample they'll usually beep for at least a good couple of minutes before they start honking the horn, etc. This is SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW THE DRIVER TO FIND A SAFE PLACE TO BLOW INTO THE drat THING.

It shouldn't have taken his attention off of the road. Period.

quote:

WILL THE INTERLOCK TURN OFF MY ENGINE?
No, the interlock will never turn off a running vehicle. If a retest is missed, the horn will sound, a violation will be recorded and the device will require early service.

WILL THE REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE A “RUNNING RETEST” CAUSE ME TO TAKE MY EYES OFF THE ROAD CREATING A HAZARDOUS SITUATION?
No, when the interlock device signals for a running retest, you have a few minutes to provide the sample or to pull over to the side of the road in a safe area to provide the breath sample. There are no buttons to push; you must only breathe into the unit to complete a breath sample.

SpacePig posted:

This one seems kinda weird. Does having an interlock on a personal vehicle not somehow prohibit it from being used in a commercial capacity?

Powershift posted:

Or maybe after they do it like, 3 times, just tell them they can't drive anymore?

SpacePig posted:

This one seems kinda weird. Does having an interlock on a personal vehicle not somehow prohibit it from being used in a commercial capacity?

boner confessor posted:

in many places in the us not being able to drive greatly fucks you over in terms of employment

so you just end up with drunks who drive around without licenses or insurance

Say Nothing posted:

Powershift posted:

You're right, just let them keep driving until they kill like, 4? people.

Then escalate the issue.

4 sounds like a good number.

Baronjutter posted:

It's almost as if the sort of scum that get interlocks are the sort of scum that would blow into them while driving.
Suspend their licenses sooner, like a year on the first offense, with longer and longer periods for re-offenses. If they try to drive while banned, take their car away. I don't give a gently caress if this destroys someone's life, better than the very high chance they'll end up loving over someone else's with a serious injury or death.

blugu64 posted:

In most of the US, barring people from driving is(should be) a violation of the first amendment, and the right to peaceably assemble.

SpacePig posted:

This one seems kinda weird. Does having an interlock on a personal vehicle not somehow prohibit it from being used in a commercial capacity?

boner confessor posted:

a ton of uber/lyft drivers are driving around "illegally" in that their insurance is for personal use only and doesn't cover commercial use

the entire ridesharing business model is full of small time illegal behavior like this

MF_James posted:

I don't know the solution to the problem, but you're just creating another problem if you revoke licenses left and right. If you revoke someone's license in anywhere but a major city (and hell even in some major cities) they are going to have a lovely time getting a job if they can at all, which creates a new problem, now this person is going to have a poo poo life because they can't get a job, what are they going to do? They aren't going to stop drinking that's for loving sure. Do you let them drive around without consequence? No, but, again, I don't know a good solution, I can tell you that revoking someone's license immediately is not the right one though. Not that anyone was necessarily advocating 1 DUI = No driving for life, but I'm not sure where to draw the line, 3, 4 maybe 5?

haveblue posted:

Install a governor to cap their car at 5mph under the local speed limit. Remove another 5mph for each repeated offense.

haveblue posted:

Install a governor to cap their car at 5mph under the local speed limit. Remove another 5mph for each repeated offense.

Baronjutter posted:

It's almost as if the sort of scum that get interlocks are the sort of scum that would blow into them while driving.
Suspend their licenses sooner, like a year on the first offense, with longer and longer periods for re-offenses. If they try to drive while banned, take their car away. I don't give a gently caress if this destroys someone's life, better than the very high chance they'll end up loving over someone else's with a serious injury or death.

Say Nothing posted:

Piggy Smalls posted:

I had an breathalyzer in my car. You have to blow very hard into it and for like 10 seconds straight. If you have a small woman with limited Ling capacity you’ll never get your car to turn on. Also it will randomly ask you to blow again and during that time it will beep over and over again and the beeping speeds up almost panicking you. Plus if you don’t blow in it at a given amount of time your car won’t turn off but it will log it in as an infraction and that can be given to the court and you will be royally hosed if the judge suspects there was something shady happening.

Believe me thee is nothing more annoying than being on a freeway and having that poo poo beep on you. Most people don’t want to exit the freeway and park because it’s a pain in the rear end.

Ps they should make it where it won’t register a breath unless you are in park. But that would make too much sense

spankmeister posted:

I'm not shedding any tears over inconveniencing DUI drivers.

blugu64 posted:

In most of the US, barring people from driving is(should be) a violation of the first amendment, and the right to peaceably assemble.

Avenging_Mikon posted:

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. gently caress YOU. "Your right to irresponsibly risk the life of everyone around you is constitutional"

Habitual drunk drivers should get life in jail for attempted murder. Because it is only a matter of time before they kill someone. Drunk drivers are a huge danger to society and they have chosen themselves to be so. I have zero sympathy for anyone who puts their right to drink above the lives of others even once, but I'm willing to concede that judgement can slip, so you get one shot to gently caress up. Second DUI, life in prison.

Let out everyone in jail for weed use, it'll free up a lot of space.