Petition - Make Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices Compulsory to Stop Drink Driving

alikazi on 05/02/2020 - 12:57
Last edited 06/02/2020 - 11:58

I started this petition just now. I am interested in knowing your opinion on this. Do you think we should make alcohol ignition interlock devices mandatory? Please read before voting here, sign the petition if you agree and leave comments. Thanks.
https://www.change.org/p/everyone-make-alcohol-ignition-inte…

Edit: Alright that didnt take long to get the votes rolling. I hadnt expected it to be a overwhelming Yes or No, I simply wasnt sure and was curious to check out the opinions.
I should address some of the very common comments here:

  • How does this system tell that the person who blew in there is the person driving? Or that it's not blown in by balloon? Or via a pipe blown by the passenger?
    The current devices are not equipped with facial recognition, but clearly we have good facial recognition technology in our phones for years now. If fitting these devices was driven by legislation, the devices that would be installed will have facial recognition to counter all of the above hacks.

  • What happens when the device asks for a "during trip" test sample and you refuse? Does the device disable the vehicle while travelling at 110kph?
    No. If you fail a running test then it will sound the alarm or horn and flash lights until you stop driving. The car will keep running so you can pull over.

  • In the future it may become a cost effective technology, but then futile because autonomous vehicles will solve these concerns.
    I disagree that self driving cars will become common so quickly. The infrastructure needed to get automated cars to work at their best is massive. 5G and 6G are going to help cars communicate with each other, but they will also need to be connected to the "grid" itself - the cars will need to know when there's an accident on the way, they need to be connected to all signals to know whether they are red, yellow or green and make appropriate decisions. Its a LOT of work still to be done for automated cars to become a common reality.
    Also, I really dont think people are simply going to give up driving. Car/motorcycle enthusiasts will resist automated cars, I guarantee it.
    Additionally it is only going to need a few tragic accidents where automated cars killed children or people and you'll see growing resistance to them.

Poll Options expired

  • 56
    Yes
  • 867
    No
  • 5
    Not sure
Automotive

Comments

  • Fredfloresjr on 05/02/2020 - 14:47
    +1

    nah

  • pantsparty on 05/02/2020 - 14:49
    +1

    What are you saying - that they should be mandatory for every single car out there? Or that they should be mandatory for everybody who gets charged with drunk driving? Or something else?

    If you mean every single car out there than I disagree. The cost is just unfeasible.

  • Gronk on 05/02/2020 - 15:02
    +5

    Haha why stop at just interlocks?

    What needs to happen is for a police officer to be bundled in with any new vehicle sale, this offer's sole duty will be to test the prospective driver for every conceivable substance before allowing access to the vehicle, for the life of the vehicle.

    I don't think that suggestion is any less ridiculous than OP's…

  • brendanm on 05/02/2020 - 15:38

    Sobering reminder

  • gooddealmate on 05/02/2020 - 16:03
    +9

    Can we get interlock devices to stop the 'permanently outraged' lefties from starting up pointless petitions on change.org?

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 18:26
        +4

        Anyone else feels like this user is trying to one up Diji1?

        Anyone?

        • bobbified on 05/02/2020 - 22:31

          That one is permanently outraged. Think it's the weed… lol

          • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 22:33
            +1

            @bobbified: Outraged while on weed?

            Far out, thats some tolerance for the stuff.

            I'd just too mellow.

            • bobbified on 05/02/2020 - 22:37

              @[Deactivated]:

              Outraged while on weed?

              Maybe they've got the diiiiiirty stuff lolol

              • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 22:58

                @bobbified: Fertilized with slow release crystal… meth

  • HardlyCharly on 05/02/2020 - 16:22
    -5

    Mandatory for previous offenders, yes that somewhat makes sense. But not for everyone, no. It wouldn't make any sense that I, as someone who is not a loser and so does not drink, would have to do so.

    • brendanm on 05/02/2020 - 17:22
      +2

      tips fedora

    • CtrlAltSpoods on 06/02/2020 - 10:39
      +1

      Really? You call everyone who enjoys alcohol losers? lol.. get off ya high horse

  • CMH on 05/02/2020 - 17:09
    +8

    For someone working in the technology field how can you not notice that autonomous cars (which are in the near-medium future) would make all these laws redundant.

    • 8GB RAM on 06/02/2020 - 18:48
      +1

      The autonomous cars might be on the piss as well. Better have interlocks for them too.

  • WhoGiveAShxt on 05/02/2020 - 18:05
    +1

    a non-solution to a non-problem.

  • Euphemistic on 05/02/2020 - 18:18

    Interesting thought. Based on the poll, doesn’t seem popular. I can imagine that work vehicles would be the first to fit them, but then cost benefit might rule that out. Catching the occasional driver at work will be far less frequent than late Saturday nights for other drivers.

    There are plenty of workplaces that require drug and alcohol testing frequently, and other that require a breath test before getting the keys to the truck. Fitting a device to every vehicle, that requires testing every time tee driver gets in would be costly in both time and money.

    As for all private vehicles I see it as unlikely, but possible.

  • Charybdia on 05/02/2020 - 18:38

    Is there a single other place in the world that does this?

    My preference would be that the device causes your fuel tank to detonate upon detecting alcohol in your system thereby maiming you and saving countless innocent lives. Hooray!

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 19:21
      +1

      Listerine ads would need the disclaimer…

      "The use of Listerine may cause permanent death by explosion. If unsure, please consult your physician."

    • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 07:37
      -2

      Australia were first (or at least among the first) with seatbelt laws. Why not wth some more safety devices.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 09:12
        +3

        One is a safety device, the other is an enforcement device.

        • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 11:31

          It could be argued that a seat belt is an enforcement device. It’s only really a safety device if you have a crash. An interlock is a safety device in terms of preventing intoxicated drivers from driving. A mandatory interlock may have prevented the 4 kids from being run over on the weekend.

          • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 11:56
            +1

            @Euphemistic: A seat belt doesn't help enforce anything. (Unless you consider not standing up in a moving vehicle as a law being enforced.)

            An interlock device cannot possibly minimise injury in the event of a collision.

  • Miss B on 05/02/2020 - 19:39
    -4

    I'd prefer if we just permanently take away the licence of anyone caught driving while over the limit and crush their car. If they get caught driving while over the limit again, minimum 6 months prison and car crushed. Same goes for people using their phones in a manner not legally permitted while driving. Speeding in school zones at the specified times. Driving under the influence of drugs. Ridiculously speeding. I'm sure there are other offences we should have it for too. Driving should be a privilege, but it's treated like a right. Anyone who has proven they can't drive responsibly just shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore.

    Also, minimum 6 months (for first offence) suspended licence for:
    - Driving in the right hand lane while not overtaking in 80k+ zone or where otherwise signposted that it is for overtaking only
    - Failing to indicate
    - Doing more than 10% under the speed limit without a good reason
    - Cutting people off
    - Tailgating
    - Not moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle with lights and/or sirens
    - This list is pretty much endless, do something annoying, lose your licence
    (I'm kind of joking about this second list, but also kind of not. Maybe a mandatory driver training program instead.)

    • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 07:38

      Current fines and disqualification doesn’t seem to work. There have been drunk driving laws and RBT for decades and people still do it. Why not move to a preventative measure?

      • Miss B on 06/02/2020 - 12:33

        People get countless drink driving charges, but if you crush their car each time as well it's going to be harder for them to get back on the road. Other people will be less likely to let them use their car if it may be crushed. Obviously more enforcement would be great. If by preventative you mean the interlock in every vehicle paid for by drivers that haven't done anything wrong and will cost something like $50b per year in total that apparently people get around anyway, including by having their young child in the car to blow into the device, I can't agree. Did you have a better preventative solution that's more effective?

    • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 12:00
      +1

      I would be for it if first they implement a disqualification of license requiring retesting for any driver that has damaged any vehicle.

      If someone cannot park withkut causing curb rash or "accidentally" graze other objects, they're definitely at a higher risk (actually not just a higher risk but definitively) not in control of their vehicle.

      • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:05

        haha, yeah I like this idea.

      • Miss B on 06/02/2020 - 14:13

        I'm definitely not against adding it to the list. Also people who can't maintain their speed within a 10km/h range. People who have at fault accidents.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 14:15

          That will most definitively solve our traffic woes.

          We can start playing highway cricket again.

          • Miss B on 06/02/2020 - 14:27

            @[Deactivated]: If they can't drive they shouldn't be on the road. If they can't be bothered focusing on the task at hand they shouldn't be on the road. I think a lot of people's driving would improve is there were genuine consequences to not driving responsibly. We could even up the speed limits if people learn to drive.

            It'll never happen though, as a society we accept that people who can't drive or don't pay attention to what they're doing should be allowed on the road anyway and it's too harsh to impose a penalty that takes them off the road, unless they get caught for 4+ infringements, which in reality probably means they have many hundreds of infringements without being caught.

  • 91rs on 05/02/2020 - 19:48
    +12

    F right off with that kinda suggestion. I am sick of of people like you who think they're helping by coming up with things that we do not need pushed upon everyone.
    Why do we continue to dumb the world down for the lowest among us?
    Where has personal accountability gone?

    • U4333439 on 05/02/2020 - 20:07
      -5

      It's called civilisation. Sorry. I wish you were given an opt out also.

      • 91rs on 05/02/2020 - 21:08

        Its people wanting to force control of others where it's not needed.
        Its not for the greater good (others chant the greater good) or advancement of civilisation.

        • CMH on 05/02/2020 - 22:41

          4 kids just died, and countless others which don't make the news do every year.

          One of the biggest reasons this is getting massively downvoted I'm guessing it's because of the potential cost, as well as being really easy to circumvent.

          If it was foolproof and free to implement, I'm guessing there would be more people voting yes.

          Otherwise, what reason is there for you to go against it? Why not protest against seatbelts? Where's my freedom to fly through the windscreen when I hit a tree?

          • jorf on 06/02/2020 - 09:17

            @CMH: False equivalence. I can not drink and drive and i'll have the same chance of dying as I would if I had to blow into an interlock first. The same cannot be said for not wearing a seatbelt.

          • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:04

            @CMH: We have socialised healthcare, so you lose your freedom to fly through the windscreen and cost us all money. :)

    • Hamlet on 06/02/2020 - 20:38

      Couldn't the same argument be used for anti-gun laws? A few crazy nuts shooting at innocent people means everyone will lose their freedom of owning guns? Yes, we all lose a bit of freedom but it's all a bit of give and take.

      • 91rs on 07/02/2020 - 08:06

        Why not take sharp things off everyone? knives, forks, blades, metal rulers, make it a rule nothing can have a sharp edge, you know anything that can hurt someone.
        I mean we will all lose a bit of freedom but its all give and take right?

        • Hamlet on 07/02/2020 - 09:33

          That's when you have to analyse the cost benefit of the item/tool/activity. I think what people can't agree on are the potential utility and liability of the item/tool/activity.

  • U4333439 on 05/02/2020 - 20:06
    +1

    You have my vote.

  • horice on 05/02/2020 - 20:39
    +5

    I would be happy to see .08 brought back

    • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:01
      +1

      Yeah 0.05 is kind of stupid. I think they mainly lowered it so they can actually catch a few unsuspecting people and have some stats to justify all the breath testing.

      • crashloaded on 06/02/2020 - 14:30

        Also easier to catch next morning drivers still over the limit. Which I don't think is a bad thing, it makes people realise even if you stopped drinking at midnight there's a good chance you shouldn't be driving a vehicle at 8am.

    • CMH on 06/02/2020 - 14:35

      I would be happy to see 0.00 brought in.

  • MessyG on 05/02/2020 - 20:48
    +6

    I appreciate the sentiment but until you get to the root of the problem you're trying to treat catastrophic haemorrhaging wounds with bandaids. There's a terrible alcohol culture in this country and all sides of politics are neck deep in it.

    • pegaxs on 05/02/2020 - 23:13
      +9

      It’s more like treating a catastrophic haemorrhage by making everyone wear bandaids…

  • Miami Mall Alien on 05/02/2020 - 23:37
    +13

    Okay, ignoring his incredibly retarded petition, why has no one addressed this:

    Other devices will track our general behaviour and emotions via chips that we will volunteer to insert in our bodies and we will be rated as a person from 1 to 10. Those chips will contain everything from our identity documents to bank accounts.

    Right.

    So the OP's clearly insane and a misanthropic, poorly-socialised, control freak who thinks Communist China's Social Credit system is a marvellous idea and watches 1984 unironically as a source of inspiration for how the world should be governed.

    Why is anyone continuing to take him seriously? This is either trolling or just sheer stupidity.

    What's next? A Bloomberg-like ban on the sale of large-size soft drinks to combat obesity?

    I work in the technology field and I know these things already exist just not widely used.

    Ah yes, the technology field, a discipline that has so much relevance when it comes to the ethical and political implications of foisting more means of social control, bureaucratic tyranny and governmental overreach upon a nation.

    This is why Silicon Valley needs to be bombed; eggheads and bean-counters will gladly march the world into a living hell if it means their pet projects can influence the lives of millions of people because its the only form of overcompensation they know in making up for their failure to connect with other human beings in a one-on-one basis throughout their lives.

    • CMH on 06/02/2020 - 00:37
      +1

      Don't you think its funny how someone in the "technology field" didn't think of using biometrics, and have to resort to the "retro-future" of implanted chips…

      Not that biometrics is the realm of sci-fi anymore…

    • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 10:04
      -7

      @Amar89 Haha. You mad bro?

    • Baysew on 06/02/2020 - 10:24

      We were trying to be polite and not state the bleeding obvious.

    • TheSmegger on 06/02/2020 - 10:40
      -1

      You're calling OP insane(kinda agree) yet you advocate for murdering 3-4 million people?

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      • Miami Mall Alien on 06/02/2020 - 13:24
        +3

        The difference between the OP's insane suggestions and mine, is that I'm clearly being facetious and obviously using an over-the-top example to try to illustrate the dangers of blindly believing in technological progress as an arbiter of a more "civilised" and "just" world.

        Whereas the OP is actually not being sarcastic but seriously believes in his assertion that living in a Sci-Fi dystopia is a good thing.

    • MessyG on 07/02/2020 - 21:45

      Doesn't my Fitbit do all that already? Great post.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 00:06
    +2

    Cars are most likely going to all be self driving in 10 years. Soon we can all be drunk passengers annoying the car AI

  • Andrew1232 on 06/02/2020 - 01:02
    +1

    I see where u are coming from, but as mentioned above plenty of ways to bypass it, get a friend, get a balloon ect. A realistic/practical thing that is being developed is driver monitoring systems that has a camera and AI algo that checks your gaze to prevent inattentive driving (mobile phone use for example). Maybe the camera in combination with other data like driving/steering pattern can be used to determine whether the driver is drunk and shut-off.

  • Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 01:27
    +5

    While we're at it, can we add a device that forces BMW owners to use their indicators?

    • CMH on 06/02/2020 - 02:18
      +3

      Easy, just program the indicators to be on all the time.

    • s732 on 06/02/2020 - 12:01
      +1

      Just apply a lock to the steering so you can only turn the wheel 5 seconds after indicating :)

  • gromit on 06/02/2020 - 02:45
    +1

    NO, most of us don't drink and drive. This is a killing a fly with a bazooka approach, Be buggered if I want to pay even more for a car because of assholes.

  • trev likes bargains on 06/02/2020 - 07:06
    +4

    OP, why not be the change you want to see in the world? Fix one of these to your car and write a blog about it. It will be a proof of concept for others.

    • U4333439 on 06/02/2020 - 07:37

      This has merit.

      • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 07:57

        True, but if OP is already unlikely to drink drive then what is it going to do? It’s only going to provide meaning if OP regularly has one or two drinks then drives close to the limit. Ie it stops OP from driving when they thought they were fine.

        • gromit on 06/02/2020 - 13:08
          +2

          If he doesn't drink he will see what a huge waste of money and annoyance it is.

    • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 10:06
      -7

      @trev likes bargains I simply never drink and drive. I will be happy to have such a device fitted, if I wouldnt be I wouldnt make a petition. Think.
      Though I do agree that as part of a legislation it cannot be expensive to fit and maintain for the vehicle owner. Car manufacturers would have to fit them from factory. This is exactly like what we've done with emissions regulations. Manufacturers have to take care of that.

      • trev likes bargains on 06/02/2020 - 11:27
        +4

        Manufacturers can take care of it but we still pay the price.

        • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 16:32

          Considering these devices can be bought for under $100 and are pretty small I can’t see the cost for a manufacturer being very high. Of course, they want to charge top dollar, but economy of scale could see the costs easily being less than $50 - not much in the overall cost of a car.

          No idea what calibration would be required or how often. Heck, since they are only an indicator they probably wouldn’t need calibration too often. There is also improved technology all the time which may not need any calibration for the level of accuracy required.

          • trev likes bargains on 06/02/2020 - 18:37

            @Euphemistic: $100 Is for something to display the reading. Interlock devices cost over $2000 installed.

            • Euphemistic on 06/02/2020 - 18:47

              @trev likes bargains: Aftermarket is $2k. There would be a fair bit of labour to do it properly, and also a big chunk of ‘sucker tax’.

              If you can buy something to give you a reading, then they can build them cheap. If the manufacturer buys in bulk and installs at production stage they could not possibly cost $2k per device.

              • 91rs on 07/02/2020 - 08:02

                @Euphemistic: Sucker tax and also to pay for their liability insurance in case it didn't take a good sample and let someone over the limit drive the vehicle which then was in an at fault accident.
                Its a terrible idea all round for everyone to be forced in to using.

                • Euphemistic on 07/02/2020 - 09:38

                  @91rs: I see it as a terrible idea to be forced to retro fit to all current vehicles, purely due to cost. I see merit in fitting some sort of technology to new vehicles, and for offenders - particularly repeat or high range offenders.

      • Butt Scratcher on 06/02/2020 - 14:37

        likes bargains I simply never drink and drive.

        That's cool and all, but I'm just going to assume that you are irresponsible when it comes to driving (like <1% of the population) and force you to fork out 2k a year just in case you do decide to drink and drive.

      • brendanm on 06/02/2020 - 17:45

        Does the manufacturer pay to replace your car converter or dpf out of warranty? Don't you think the price of these (expensive) items is already being built in to the car?

  • jojo13 on 06/02/2020 - 07:53
    +1

    I'm not a drinker…..so HELL YEAH!!!

    • Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 11:10
      +2

      Remember that you must pay for the device to be fitted to your car too, regardless if you're a drinker or not. A family member who drinks could borrow the car, so, pay up.

  • TerryJustTerry on 06/02/2020 - 08:30
    +1

    I think added to a person's car after drink driving prosecution as part of what they need to do to use a vehicle.

  • Thinkscape on 06/02/2020 - 08:48
    +1

    Here's how it works in other countries (that have the interlock system):

    1. On first offence you lose license for 6-24 months.
    2. On second offence you lose license permanently with an option to get it back after i.e. 6mo under the following conditions:
      a) You must install interlock system and pay for it
      b) You must attend mandatory road safety training
      c) You must not drive a vehicle without interlock system (i.e. borrow)
      d) Your name is in a database and you can't rent a vehicle without interlock.
    3. The interlock can only be installed by a certified installer.

    For people that lost license permanently, paying the $2000 for the interlock usually beats the alternative of not being to drive a car ever again. If you're wondering, yes, there are special criminal penalties for people who either help the defeat the system, or otherwise tamper with it.

    I know a person who's a certified installer - he easily gets 2-4 jobs every week. Statistically the system has proven to deter serious offenders (is effective and is a good "last resort" redemption for people who genuinely want to sit behind the wheel again).

    • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 10:10
      +1

      @Thinkscape thanks for the info, thats interesting and sounds fair.

        • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 10:32

          @baysew I dont think thats unfair, it is also fair but I mean what happens when you kill or seriously injure yourself or someone else in your first offence? Do you think people who drink and drive get caught when they do it the first time? No, they get away with it multiple times then they keep doing it. Then they take more risks - they drink more and still drive but they dont get caught. Eventually they cause a tragedy. Do I have sympathy for idiots who do that? No. Do I want my kids to be safe from drunk drivers? Yes. Can I rely on people to be responsible? No. So, make it part of legislation. Strict laws only prosecute after the criminal is caught, and a lot of times it is already too late.

          • Baysew on 06/02/2020 - 10:39
            +1

            @alikazi: So, why haven't you fitted an interlock device on your car?

            • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:13

              @Baysew: Wait, so you are saying if I fit it then you will too?

              • Baysew on 06/02/2020 - 11:14
                +1

                @alikazi: I am saying -

                So, why haven't you fitted an interlock device on your car?

                • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:15

                  @Baysew: Nope, again, will you fit it if I do?

                  • Baysew on 06/02/2020 - 11:18
                    +1

                    @alikazi: Why haven't you fitted an interlock device to your car?

                    Seems to be contradictory to your post.

                    • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:19

                      @Baysew: No, the point is you've just ignored everything I said in my first reply and now you're hung up with this "why havent you" thing. This is by definition, trolling.

                      • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 11:57
                        +2

                        @alikazi: If you think it's such a good idea that it should be mandatory for everyone - then why haven't you already installed one in your own car.

                        That is the point.

                        • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:02

                          @trapper: And my response to that is - will you install it if I do?

                          • Gronk on 06/02/2020 - 12:16
                            +2

                            @alikazi: And it's a very, very low quality response if I may say so :)

                            • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:23
                              -5

                              @Gronk: haha no worries thats what trolls get.

                              • Gronk on 06/02/2020 - 12:40
                                +1

                                @alikazi: You answered his question with a question, now you're using accusations of trolling to look for the door…

                                Just admit you don't have a real response and move on.

                                A quick glance at the poll numbers would suggest someone else is trolling ;)

                          • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:47
                            +2

                            @alikazi: Of course not, why would I do a stupid thing like that.

                            You think it's such a good idea that it should be mandated by law, yet you don't even have one yourself.

                            • alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 13:11
                              -2

                              @trapper: Thats like saying "there is a coronavirus epidemic, why dont you take a shot if you think it works". If I took a shot does that stop the virus from spreading? No. There is an epidemic and only me taking a shot does not fix the epidemic. For that to work more people have to take the shot. Do you get it now or you still going to keep trolling?

                              • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 13:17
                                +3

                                @alikazi: No it's not like a virus at all. It's like jumping off a building.

                                You think it's such a good idea that everyone should be forced to do it. Yet you won't jump yourself.

  • garddn on 06/02/2020 - 09:08

    Do you have an alcohol interlock business?

  • kaleidoscope on 06/02/2020 - 09:10
    +1

    I don’t drink and drive at all. Not even single drink nor do I allow any of my mates to drive while they’re drunk with me onboard.
    So I’m not paying some company XXX money on top of everything else like insurance / service / rego to maintain a device on my behalf that serves no purpose.

    No thanks.

    • trapper on 06/02/2020 - 11:52

      And invades your privacy like some kind of dystopian nightmare.

      Why not put a video camera every room in every house - should reduce the crime rate!

  • DV0993 on 06/02/2020 - 09:11
    +1

    Not hacking up my classic for extremists.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join