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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• 

  OneJay on 06/02/2020 - 09:36

  +1

  Yes! to Proposition 24.

• 

  smux on 06/02/2020 - 09:37

  +1

  Freedom isn't free, it costs a hefty fee. People should fight against Chinese style monitoring into our lives and I see this suggestion as part of that. We do not need every decision we make monitored by the government.

  • 

    pegaxs on 06/02/2020 - 09:43

    +1

    Freedom isn't free

    Apparently it's "a buck 'o five"

  • 

    smux on 06/02/2020 - 09:44

    I don't even drink and I think this is bad just out of principle. Just because you work in tech doesn't mean you need to advocate for freedom inhibiting technology.

• 

  capslock janitor on 06/02/2020 - 09:43

  +1

  maybe for repeat offender

  edit: but they should lose their license by then, won't stop them getting into a car however

• 

  Ozpit on 06/02/2020 - 09:44

  I wonder if any ozbargainer’s current beliefs on drink driving regulations would change if their entire family was wiped out by a drunk driver?

  • 

    capslock janitor on 06/02/2020 - 09:46

    Until then…

  • 

    Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 11:08

    +2

    Obviously it would change the person's beliefs. But here's the catch: Having your family wiped out by a drunk driver is extremely rare. It's almost certain no OzBargain user will ever experience this tragic event.

    It's like asking if my family was killed by bikies then would I want all bikie clubs banned and members arrested? Or would I want all guns banned if my family was massacred by gun wielding maniacs? All theoretical questions that don't apply to 99.9999% of people.

    • 

      Ozpit on 06/02/2020 - 11:26

      OK, then let’s limit it to just your wife or children, or one child, or both of your parents, or your siblings.
      Supposing it was your whole family (less you), perhaps you could also ask yourself why your beliefs would change, given that you no longer have a family to be potentially wiped out in the future by a drunk driver (or bikies).

      • 

        Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 13:07

        +2

        But that's the thing: the event is very unlikely to happen to me. Why should I worry about it? It's very unlikely to happen to you too, or anyone you know.

        The argument follows the same line of logic as 'if it only saves one life, it's worth it'. Well, we could ban all knives and limit possession to licensed chefs, as I can guarantee that would save at least one life, somewhere. We could reduce all speed limits to 40km/h and modify cars to not breach the limit. This would save hundreds of lives across Australia every year as it would be unlikely to have a fatality in a modern car at that speed. We could ban the sale of alcohol with severe penalties for production or possession. No one needs alcohol. Imagine how many cases of domestic violence would be prevented if everyone was always sober?

        But what's the cost of doing all that? What is the cost to society by imposing a draconian speed limit, or mandating that everyone has a breathalyzer lock out system installed in their car? There are 19 million registered vehicles in Australia. If a lock out system cost just $500 (very cheap, way below current costs), the cost to Australians would be 9.5 billion dollars. Is it worth it? For the family that deals with the tragedy of losing their children? Yes. No amount of money is too much. But for everyone else? No.

        • 

          Ozpit on 07/02/2020 - 08:29

          @Cluster: I think I understand your thinking: if something horrific is unlikely (a relative term) to happen to you there shouldn’t be a law or a cost to you to help prevent it happening. But it’s acceptable (natural) for others to think the opposite when such a thing happens to them. Interesting.

  • 

    trapper on 06/02/2020 - 11:48

    +3

    Nobody thinks drink driving should be legal…

    What we don't want however is draconian laws invading every aspect of our lives.

    Would mandatory random house searches reduce crime, probably. Is that the world we want to live in though?

  • 

    kaleidoscope on 06/02/2020 - 15:05

    It's not about belief. It's just that the proposed solution to address the concern is as ridiculous as it gets.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 07/02/2020 - 15:11

    Sure, but that doesn't mean their views will suddenly be more valid or correct, it just means it'll introduce some serious bias into their thinking.

• 

  Oofy Doofy on 06/02/2020 - 10:11

  +1

  I voted no, but i agree in the future it would be cost effective technology wise, but then futile because autonomous vehicles will solve these concerns.

  • 

    alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 10:26

    I also agree that it needs to be cost effective and I'm sure it can be made very cost effective with some more R&D. Thought 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.

    Another thing - 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.

    • 

      CMH on 06/02/2020 - 11:17

      +1

      I don't see how an interlock device can be effective without someone manually checking that it's being used as it should.

      Right now these programs depend on someone getting paid to check exactly that, and even them some people still try their luck, suggesting that there are others who get away with improper use (and thus suggesting they still drink and drive).

      So bottom line it's a really expensive proposition, or it will be ineffective. Either way it will not be standard kit unless some really new technology comes up.

      Maybe you've heard something that we haven't?

      Like someone suggested, why not get it installed and then you'd understand the hurdles this program faces.

      • 

        alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:28

        -1

        I don't see how an interlock device can be effective without someone manually checking that it's being used as it should.

        There would be no manual check required because the car simply doesnt start if you fail the breath test. If you fail it when car is running, it starts the alarm/horn and flashes light but continues to run so you can pull over and stop the alarm. The point is to render the car not unusable when you're drunk.

        Yes I do agree that some more R&D will make such devices much more easy and cheaper to install. Legislation can drive this, like it has with restrictions on carbon emissions.

        • 

          CMH on 06/02/2020 - 11:43

          @alikazi: And 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?

          A person manually checks the video feed at an interval to make sure the interlock isn't being bypassed by some method or another. Without this check, it's useless.

          • 

            alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:46

            @CMH: A photo is taken by the device when you give breath sample. The current devices are not equipped with facial recognition, but clearly we have good facial recognition technology in our phones already. If this was driven by legislation, the devices that would be installed will have facial recognition to counter all of the above "hacks".

            • 

              CMH on 06/02/2020 - 12:14

              @alikazi: So like I said just put a pipe in and get the passenger to blow in it, while I hold a similar looking thing in my mouth.

              Or just put an electrical bypass.

              • 

                alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:21

                -1

                @CMH: What? Facial recognition will capture the face of whoever is blowing, the camera is attached right behind the mouth piece. You cant do this pipe thing.

                Or just put an electrical bypass.

                If you try attempt some electrical hack and you mess up do you know what you risk? You risk your car not starting at all because you broke the device. Would you be OK with a car that doesnt start just because you really wanted to get drunk and get behind the wheel? Isnt it so much easier to get an Opal card when you want to drink?

                • 

                  CMH on 06/02/2020 - 12:27

                  @alikazi: Are you putting this device to stop people who want to drink and drive, or just to test people who are following the law?

                  The former lot will do anything to bypass these "pesky" devices, and if there's a way to do it, it will be done. Manuals will be posted online, and backyard mechanics will be installing them for a beer.

                  Why don't you make an appointment and speak to someone who installs these products and ask them about the program, what they do to make sure people comply, and if new technology you're suggesting will help with compliance? You'd be surprised at the lengths some people go to bypass these systems…

                  • 

                    alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:35

                    @CMH: I agree with that. I definitely know people will find ways to hack it and it will become a game of cat and mouse. But then again hacking it would become a offence in itself so people who do hack it risk getting caught and fined, which will discourage many people in itself.

                    Look, I'm trying to explore a way to stop drink driving accidents where other people die or get seriously injured, which is wayy worse than the drunk driver themselves getting injured or dying. I think its only possible via technology. No amount of strict laws and policing is really going to stop it. We already have cameras rolled out to catch people touching their phones right?. This is despite all public announcements, strict punishments and what not, right? And how are we doing it - in the form of a new technology.

                    What I know is we will eventually get around to implementing some form of technology to stop drink driving whether we like it or not. It will happen, just wait. Like I said in my post, I was simply curious to know what people think of my petition thats why I made this post. Thats it.

                    • 

                      CMH on 06/02/2020 - 12:37

                      +1

                      @alikazi: Yeah, that technology is called "autonomous driving". It's coming, and would be more effective and stable technology.

                      And would be here before interlock technology can be made foolproof.

                      • 

                        alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:38

                        -2

                        @CMH: Nope. You're wrong about that. Read my response to this in my post, I added it some time ago.

                        • 

                          CMH on 06/02/2020 - 12:52

                          +4

                          @alikazi: From your posts, it seems like your grasp of technology today and in the near future is pretty limited.

                          You overestimate the capability of facial recognition available today, and overestimate the requirements of autonomous driving.

                          You're arguing for a device that will be of limited benefit, while underestimating how easy it is to bypass that technology, and how hard it is to prevent these bypasses.

                          I can't help but suspect your involvement in the "technological sector" isn't in making that technology, but rather to market/sell it, which requires little understanding of technology in general.

                          • 

                            alikazi on 17/02/2020 - 16:05

                            @CMH: How many times should I tell you, you're wrong.
                            https://www.inverse.com/article/62191-no-fully-automated-car…

                            • 

                              CMH on 18/02/2020 - 04:44

                              @alikazi: Your proof that you're right is a… pop media article that's barely 200 words?

                              Inverse predicts that automakers won’t reach the holy grail of a fully self-driving car in the 2020s, but they will take to the streets in limited scenarios.

                              The closest thing I can find to a justification of that statement is:

                              Musk had admitted that it’s “extremely difficult to achieve a general solution for self-driving that works well everywhere.”

                              Maybe if you had linked to a whitepaper that has a little bit more information I might say I got it wrong. Preferably something written by someone with an engineering degree rather than journalism, as per the author of the article you linked.

                    • 

                      Technics on 07/02/2020 - 00:53

                      @alikazi: Making drink driving an offense didn't stop people who are willing to drink and drive illegally from drinking and driving illegally but making defeating the interlock an offense will certainly stop those same people from defeating the interlock illegally. Solid plan. I like it.

                      Yes they do have cameras that catch people using phones now don't they. It's great because they have caught zero people because that new technology has eliminated the problem of dangerous mobile phone use while driving.

                      In any case I really love your plan but what really concerns me is the thought that some crafty drunks might switch to other drugs that don't stop their car working. Can you start another petition demanding the government get a couple of staff from the National Measurement Institute to hold on to everyone's keys until they complete a battery of forensic drug tests each time anyone wants to drive somewhere?

                      Come to think of it. It seems like terrible sober drivers are falling through the cracks here as well. Sober people cause carnage on the roads all the time. Perhaps we should start a petition demanding all new cars shut down when they detect the driver doesn't know how to indicate properly at a roundabout. It'd be a good start and I'm all for it. It should be relatively trivial to detect that with GPS technology and cameras.

                      This also reminds me. I observed a tradie eating a pie while driving the other day. Only one hand on the wheel. A serious threat to the community. I attempted to perform a citizens arrest but he drove off before I could save the day. Surely with the talent in this country we could develop some pie recognition algorithms and demand a pie interlock be fitted to new vehicles to prevent such dangerous situations occurring in future.

        • 

          bamzero on 06/02/2020 - 12:34

          @alikazi:

          If you fail it when car is running, it starts the alarm/horn and flashes light but continues to run so you can pull over and stop the alarm.

          Well that's not distracting to every other driver on the road.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 10:26

  So 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 on the freeway while overtaking on the opposite side of the road? Not even push button start cars that callous if you leave the keys at home.

• 

  christopher8827 on 06/02/2020 - 10:47

  Yea nah, they could easily get someone sober to cheat the test.

• 

  superdarkhumour on 06/02/2020 - 10:54

  -2

  Education is still key!

  Those white bogans, sons of convicts, born to offend, will always seek to offend no matter what.

  If they can't do it in Australia, they will kill someone else in Bali!

  You can't change those with convict blood.

  We need more immigrants to raise the IQ of this country and only then we'll see some changes in alcohol consumption.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 07/02/2020 - 10:47

    Ah. So white collared fools cannot possibly drink and drive?

    You sound absolutely bogan.

    The only thing we agree on is that we need higher IQ, moreso that your comment is sitting right there.

    • 

      Euphemistic on 07/02/2020 - 12:04

      Unfortunately higher IQ often comes with a sense of entitlement which cancels out the increase realisation of being over the limit with a sense that they have to pick up the kids, get to the meeting, not leave the car in the city because it’s unsafe, and don’t you dare stop em.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/02/2020 - 12:31

        higher IQ often comes with a sense of entitlement.

        Genuinely curious on source.

        • 

          Euphemistic on 07/02/2020 - 13:56

          @[Deactivated]: Just anecdotal. the self made wealthy, lawyers, judges, doctors who think they are above the law are probably higher iq than average. I’d say politicians too, but I guess they are not proven to have higher iq.

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 07/02/2020 - 14:11

            +2

            @Euphemistic:

            who think they are above the law

            That is more an issue of arrogance and narcissism. It may be related to a sense of entitlement.

            Low IQ socio economics are actually more likely to be associated with entitled behaviour - ie. Expecting assistance, handouts, discount.

            High socio economics are more likely to be associated with arrogance - ie. Expecting to leverage their position for special treatment.

            Leveraging requires one to have something, classic entitlement requires one to merely expect something.

• 

  cfuse on 06/02/2020 - 11:26

  +1

  It would be far more effective to put all that time and money into a program of public shaming. If you are attempting to modulate morality then technology is less effective than social stigma is. A bright pink shackle around drink drivers necks would bring the entire issue to a screaming halt faster than any scheme of interlocks ever could.

  If we must make changes to behaviour I'd rather see self driving cars become the standard. If people's voluntary conduct is an issue you simply make it easier for them to be disinclined out of indolence rather than responsibility. The path of least resistance is useful to exploit when attempting to alter the prevalence of behaviours. Whatever the default is will always be the majority of the choice because people are lazy.

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

  As you well know, what politicians and managers intend and what they get are two wholly different things. Devices and systems can be gamed and hacked. From a design standpoint one must be particularly careful about what one incentivises, it is rare that a result and a metric marry so neatly as to correspond to each other meaningfully.

  One need only look at North Korea to see that an authoritarian and totalitarian existence is possible without much technology at all. One need only look at China to see the inverse (at least in principle. The Chinese attitude of shoddyness and grift causes their technological panopticon to be every bit as garbage as anything else they try to do). In the West we mostly use hedonism as a control mechanism, we are monitored and we simply don't care because we're too busy entertaining ourselves. It always boils down to a spectrum with 1984 on one end and Brave New World on the other. Technology isn't the problem, it is human nature, specifically that of cleaving to total control of others, that is the issue.

  • 

    alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 11:38

    Okay. In essence I think you're saying that pushing for such technologies to become mandatory make a society authoritarian because it feeds the need to control others. I can agree with that to some extent. In my post I've mentioned that eventually we are all going to get injected with chips that will track everything about us. It will be the ultimate surrender of privacy. It will happen slowly but I think it will. Technology that brings convenience and saves time almost always wins.

    So even though you might be right to say

    Technology isn't the problem, it is human nature, specifically that of cleaving to total control of others, that is the issue

    what I'm saying is it will happen anyway. Technology will take over anyway. But I also think human nature will improve as technology grows. When technology saves lives, does mundane tasks for us we become free to be more creative. The end result I think will be a society that is heavily controlled, but at the same time not authoritarian instead a creative one.

  • 

    Bunnyburger on 07/02/2020 - 23:29

    We need the sibyl system in Psychopass.

• 

  Eeples on 06/02/2020 - 11:34

  +2

  I think I support the Victorian mandatory fitting of testing machines for any drink driving offence; perhaps it should be rolled out nationally.

  • 

    CMH on 06/02/2020 - 13:08

    Do this together with a national campaign to say "behave like the limit is 0.00".

    Problem with the 0.05 law is that people try to drive thinking they're under. Attitudes should be changed so if you want to drink, ANY amount, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.

• 

  trapper on 06/02/2020 - 11:43

  +1

  Go back to North Korea.

• 

  HighAndDry on 06/02/2020 - 11:45

  +3

  27 — Yes
  401 - No
  3 —— Not sure

  Good to see sanity prevail.

  • 

    spackbace on 06/02/2020 - 13:14

    +1

    Did you see the comments on the linked petition? lol

• 

  Lord Fart Bucket on 06/02/2020 - 11:57

  +2

  I live very close to Oatlands. I drive this stretch frequently… and I have kids in that age range. It has affected me. I drove on Bettington road yesterday, people are still stopping and putting down flowers.

  It is a natural reaction to try to stop this happening again. The problem is that this quick reaction is often not thought through properly. Do we have a problem with drink driving? I believe so. Do we have a problematic alcohol culture in this country? Again, I believe so.
  Is this idea going to solve it? No, unfortunately not.

  I wish there was an easy fix. But if there was, this would have been dealt with long ago. What it will take is a change in attitude from the entire country. Change this "I only had a few, she'll be right mate". Call the cops on your best friend and tell them where to go to pull him/her over. This isn't a dog act… this might save their life.

  • 

    alikazi on 06/02/2020 - 12:16

    -6

    A sane response in a sea of loony comments. I see your point and sympathise with your distress.

• 

  Chthonic on 06/02/2020 - 12:24

  +4

  I had to get the interlock installed in my car. I was smashed in the middle of Canberra winter and went and sat in my car, turned it on and put the heaters on and started texting my mates asking where they were and that I wanted to get the blue rapid bus home (Goes from Civic to other major interchanges). Cop knocked on my window, arrested as I had intent to drive. Didn't argue it, wasn't anything I could do even though it was in park and had the handbrake on.

  The interlock device is a MASSIVE pain in the ass. It's essentially a punishment. Why this would ever be considered mandatory for all drivers is beyond me. The slightest thing sets it off. Bread, mouthwash, toothpaste, even spraying cologne on your neck. It goes off what seems like every 15 mins, it's extremely easy to cause a breach if you don't blow into it. The cops expect you to pull over every time it starts beeping because using it while driving is illegal. It's not a simple case of just talking into it or blowing some air, you have to blow extremely hard and make a super loud humming sound as well.

  Also, the technology isn't cheap. The dude was telling me the system costs about $2500-$3000. It requires installation, regular-re calibration to ensure it's getting the correct readings. Could you imagine if every single driver had to pay the initial costs, installation, plus having to re-calibrate the thing every month? That ontop of how annoying it is, having a cord dangling from behind your steering wheel to the device…

  My 2c

  • 

    trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:52

    If you do this make sure you don't sit in drivers seat.

    You can probably still get arrested but will have a far better case to make to the cops (or judge if it comes to that)

  • 

    Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 13:35

    Interesting that you mention toothpaste and bread would set it off. Sounds like the device used a MEMS sensor instead of a fuel cell, like police breathalyzers use. I recall having a MEMS based device which would show my BAC was 0.4 if I used it 10 minutes after brushing my teeth. The toothpaste didn't contain alcohol, and I didn't use mouthwash. Switching to a proper fuel cell model gave no false positives.

    For $3k you'd think the devices would be much better.

• 

  picklewizard on 06/02/2020 - 12:29

  +2

  What an incredibly poorly thought-out, short-sighted idea.

  You are being ridiculous.

• 

  trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:39

  +4

  Obesity kills hundreds of times more people than drunk drivers.

  The government should require mandatory BMI checks before any fast food can be served!

  • 

    Cluster on 06/02/2020 - 13:38

    +1

    Indeed. People are in a panic because some cute kids were killed. That always makes for better heart wrenching headlines.

    As you say, there are dozens of people dying today from obesity caused diseases. But we can't see them, no one is writing about them, and we don't care. Shutting off the sugar supply to Australians would save far more lives than mandating lockouts for all cars.

• 

  Roman Sandstorm on 06/02/2020 - 12:44

  +4

  Let's not let pesky facts get in the way of emotional knee-jerk reactions.

  Yes, of course it is sad and unfortunate that there was a recent multiple road death which appears to have involved alcohol. And yes, there is outrage on talk-back radio, and on internet forums, and immediate calls for everything from stoning to car crushing.

  But let's look at some facts.

  Motor vehicle deaths in Australia are at the lowest ever level. Car Deaths Measured either by total population, by total vehicles on the road, or by the total number of kilometres travelled.

  Even since 2000 (you know, the year Brad and Jen got hitched?) fatalities have at least halved. Hell, when I was a young driver I had five times the likelihood of dying in a car crash than I do today!

  So…. something good is happening. Something is being done right.

  No doubt this is a combination of many factors, probably including, but not limited to: safer car design, active and passive accident avoidance, better roads, better trauma and recovery, lower involvement of alcohol.

  Alcohol contributes towards 25-30% of road fatalities. Road safety this used to be much, much higher.

  So it appears that the various methodologies to reduce the road toll are, and have been working pretty well.

  It's hard to emphasise the incredible social change which has occurred over the decades regarding drink driving. Anyone over 40 will know what the 'bad old days' were like: the carefree (and dangerous) attitude towards driving after having consumed alcohol.

  There are always going to be idiots. Mostly young males. People don't like to think about this. But most many young males are risk taking morons. They over-contribute to road toll, crime, assaults, rapes, murders and hip hop. There is probably a lower limit fast approaching where these factors can be contained for young males. We may just have to accept a certain baseline.

  Then there is the 'regional' factor. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world, but 64% of deaths occur outside of the major cities. Stats In fact, half of all road deaths occur on rural roads [Stats[https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2017/04/Rural-remote-road-safety-screen.pdf).

  So… will increasing draconian and punitive measures further reduce road deaths? Possibly. A small amount. Although, as the evidence shows, current measures are doing quite well.

  Some may say, "If only one more life is saved, then it's worth it." An emotional and erroneous idea however. This could be extended… What if we totally banned male drivers from 17-29 years of age? Massive reduction in road toll. Think of all the lives saved. But, ridiculous.

  Similarly, we could halve the road toll overnight by banning country drivers. Bang! 700 lives saved in one year. Surely it's worth it to save 700 lives? Again, ridiculous.

  Absurd emotional knee-jerk internet forum, tabloid front page, radio talkback responses will achieve nothing. Considered, responsible evidence-based public policy has done wonders so far, and will continue to do so.

  TL;DR… yeah, if you bitch about how long this post is, for your tiny millenium attention span, have a few drinks, and go for a long drive. Idiot.

  • 

    trapper on 06/02/2020 - 12:56

    +1

    +1 for hip hop :D

    • 

      Roman Sandstorm on 06/02/2020 - 13:57

      +1

      LOL… +1 to reading that far.

  • 

    s732 on 06/02/2020 - 14:27

    Yep, this.

• 

  OzHunterNSW on 06/02/2020 - 13:41

  NO…. the police are doing a fine job

• 

  Budju on 06/02/2020 - 13:45

  looool

• 

  tightasian on 06/02/2020 - 13:55

  +1

  I personally think there should be a police officer in every car on the road, make driving offences as a history. Call me genius.

• 

  Butt Scratcher on 06/02/2020 - 14:22

  You have not thought through this at all.

  You realise it costs over 2k+ a year just to rent one out at the moment, presumably because of the ongoing costs associated with the constant need for calibration. This doesn't even include installation fees. So tell me, who the hell is going to pay for 20 million of these hmm?

  Come back once you've figured out where we are going to get 50+ billion dollars to fund something completely useless.

  Currently it is basically only intended for individuals who have a record of drink driving, and want to prove them self to the court. That's how it should be

  There's also mitigating measures already in place like CTP, police and court

• 

  Kaidra on 06/02/2020 - 15:07

  +1

  New devices take a photo of who blew into the machine. Buy yeah, I don't drink and drive, neither does my wife, kids, mates or anyone I know. Why do I need to be punished for the very tiny stupid minority?!

• 

  syousef on 06/02/2020 - 15:50

  Do you own or own shares in an interlock installation company?

• 

  F11HLL on 06/02/2020 - 17:28

  What a rediculous idea

• 

  brendanm on 06/02/2020 - 17:48

  How would I get home from the pub if I had to have an interlock device fitted?

  • 

    Mosher on 07/02/2020 - 09:11

    Easy take a (profanity) taxi if you are going to drink

    it's some sort of joke to you??

    I hope nobody you care about gets killed by a drunk driver

    • 

      brendanm on 07/02/2020 - 11:47

      Then my car is at the pub though?

      • 

        Mosher on 07/02/2020 - 19:27

        If you were going to drink you should of caught a taxi to the pub

      • 

        Mosher on 07/02/2020 - 19:48

        If you were going to drink you should of caught a taxi to the pub

• 

  Keef on 06/02/2020 - 17:53

  -1

  This thread reeks of small-mindedness

• 

  Handsoff on 06/02/2020 - 18:19

  Talk about a knee jerk reaction

• 

  biozet on 06/02/2020 - 18:44

  +1

  Won’t this spread coronavirus

• 

  groot on 06/02/2020 - 18:51

  Why interlock device n all.. Suspend licence incase found drink and driving.

  • 

    brendanm on 07/02/2020 - 11:48

    +1

    You realise people can still drive with a suspended licence?

    • 

      groot on 07/02/2020 - 20:55

      May be they are not aware about jail term and upto 35000 fine :D
      But I think it will definitely curb it to a large extent.

      • 

        brendanm on 07/02/2020 - 21:17

        +1

        They never get jail, or a large fine.

• 

  digitalaxon on 06/02/2020 - 19:01

  Perhaps we need to start this Petition - Make I.Q interlock device compulsory on keyboards to stop half baked petitions being posted? <evil grin>

  But in all seriousness, in 20-30 years we might not need to worry about such things as AI will have evolved that cars will drive themselves for us, and the road toll will become 0 - and that is something I look forward to.

• 

  Brick Tamland on 06/02/2020 - 19:31

  Thats like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

  You are going to massively inconvenience every single person just to catch out a few drunk drivers. All those people that never drink would have to get an expensive device and spend a fortune maintaining it. I doubt it’s even logistically possible. And then you are not even catching those drivers with drugs in their system.

  Craziness.

• 

  GUYANDSON on 06/02/2020 - 20:47

  Christ on a bike.

  cost to install, cost to standardise, cost to make the device secure, cost to circulate, cost to calibrate, cost to police and so on.

  so many other places that all that money could be better used to better effect to prevent drunk drivers.

• 

  bodymovin on 06/02/2020 - 21:05

  +1

  This idea is bad and you should feel bad

• 

  Cave Fire on 06/02/2020 - 21:12

  Firstly, have you used the device that you want to make mandatory for everyone? Did have one for a while. One of the fun features is that you have to provide samples while you drive. Providing one of these samples multiple times while you are on the motorway is a fun experience. The interlock is fussy about samples, so it will just keep requesting samples until it reads one. I think it will be a matter of time before someone gets in an accident because they had to provide a sample while driving. If you fail a few, you get a "reset" which is the machine shutting your car off and starting the horns and lights on and off.

• 

  bweiss on 06/02/2020 - 21:18

  I definitely don't think it should be compulsory for non-offenders.
  But I think that on the first offence all vehicles registered in the name of the offender, and the vehicle that was being driven when caught DUI should be made to have an alcohol interlock fitted (at offenders cost), or surrendered to police.

  The interlock device should be capable of taking a photo at each activation, and every x minutes whilst the car is in motion.
  The offender would be advised that if obvious attempts to block the camera are made, or if there is evidence that another person blew into the device, but was subsequently not driving, then the vehicle ownership will be forfeit (it will revert to police auction), and the person that blew into the device will be pursued for criminal mischief.

  There's really no excuse for drink driving, and repeat drink drivers (and any enablers) need to be harshly punished.

• 

  Tonyh87 on 06/02/2020 - 21:27

  +4

  I wish that there was a feature on the change petitions where you could vote against the petition. Maybe I should start a petition to force them to implement this feature

• 

  kingofozbargain on 06/02/2020 - 21:45

  +3

  I think an interlock should be compulsory before posting on Ozbargain

• 

  iDroid on 07/02/2020 - 09:02

  Those who choose to drink drive will circumvent them.

  • 

    brendanm on 07/02/2020 - 11:49

    +2

    Those who don't drink drive will also circumvent them, as they are a massive pain in the ass.

    • 

      iDroid on 07/02/2020 - 11:51

      Yep, they are a thing, but they don't do a thing other than cause problems.

• 

  Mosher on 07/02/2020 - 09:08

  Maybe what they should do is make it automatic jail time for people who are caught drink driving and if the person kills someone the should get the same sentence as a person convicted of murder and they should also be made to pay money to the victims family

• 

  morebunnings on 07/02/2020 - 09:40

  There are approx. 18 million cars in Australia. At a cost of approx $2,000 per car breath testing unit & locking mechanism installed, this would cost around $36 billion dollars upfront to implement + enforcement and legislation costs, and then the maintenance costs.

  There are about 1.15 million new cars bought per year, meaning it'd cost another $2.3 billion per year to fit out the new cars.

  To give you an idea of how much of a non-issue this is, there were 660 drunk driving deaths in Australia last year. Thats a cost of $4.4 million per year per person potentially saved just to fit out new cars. We could save way more lives with that money by solving different problems.

  • 

    petry on 07/02/2020 - 14:22

    like increasing the aboriginal life expectancy? Never happen.

  • 

    OzzyOzbourne on 07/02/2020 - 14:42

    I get your point… But your last statement puts a dollar price on the human life …. Is your son/daughter worth $4.4 million?

    • 

      morebunnings on 10/02/2020 - 09:31

      .. I don't get your point?

      If you were in government and presented with 2 well researched plans: Both cost $2.3 billion/year. Both are reducing the amount of accidental deaths. One plan would save 660 lives a year, and one would save 6,600 lives a year. There is only enough budget for one. Which do you choose?

      • 

        Euphemistic on 10/02/2020 - 13:24

        There is only enough budget for one. Which do you choose

        There is very rarely either/or in decision making like that. The money would be split in some way to do a bit of both.

        (It would not cost $2.3b per year to install in new vehicles - the factory would fit them for a lot less)

• 

  inittobinit on 07/02/2020 - 09:41

  +1

  How about harsher penalties instead?

  Over 0.05 - Fine and minimum 12 months imprisonment.

  • Genuine fear of repercussions, leading to;
  • Instant improvement in incidence of DUI
  • Accidents reduced (30% of fatal accidents involve alcohol currently)
  • Lives saved

  However,
  - Waste of tax payer money (debatable)

  Drink driving is one of those crimes I feel which aren't circumstantial; there isn't a single reason you should be doing it and if you're at peace putting other peoples lives at risk including your own you should pay the price.

  • 

    Euphemistic on 07/02/2020 - 12:06

    Increasing penalties is having less and less effect. We’ve had drink driving laws for decades and still people will drive drunk. Once drunk reason goes out the window.

    Ever seen RBT on tv?

    • 

      inittobinit on 07/02/2020 - 15:24

      Yes i have seen it, and the fines are abysmal for what they're being caught doing, which is exactly my point.

      We've never had extremely severe penalties under drink driving laws so I don't know if its fair to say they have less effect without ramping them up first.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 07/02/2020 - 16:08

        In our car centric world losing your licence is pretty severe. Potential loss of job etc. fines are pretty high, not many of us have thousands spare to throw at the govt.

        The real problem is that drivers don’t believe they will get caught. RBT works, but there isn’t enough of it and we can’t/won’t afford to pay for a cop to pull you over every time you drive.

        I’ve only been RBT’d Maybe half a dozen times in the last 10 years that I can recall and can only remember once with the kids in the car, and the oldest is in high school. (Kids get excited because we might be on tv!)

• 

  Zondor on 07/02/2020 - 12:50

  Plz add "Hell no" option to poll

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4