Connect with us

Building an interlock device for DUI parolee.

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by Simon, Apr 20, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Simon

    Simon Guest

    I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
    over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter his
    phone number or social security number within xx seconds or something
    better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be inconvenient to
    other sober drivers. What are some of the best way (or device) I could
    use to prevent a drunk person from starting his car?

  2. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Buy a breathalyzer interlock... they're manufactured you know.
    They're often required here by the courts (in AZ) to continue to drive
    after a 2nd DUI.

    ...Jim Thompson
  3. Don Bruder

    Don Bruder Guest

    One of the units specified by the courts who issue such sentences.

    My bet is that the officially supplied-by-the-court units are considered
    to be the *ONLY* devices that are acceptable for such use, period, world
    without end, no negotiation, no nothing.

    As in "Our terms, or you get to sit in the clink. Don't like that?
    Tough! You shouldn't have been driving while drunk. Oh, you want to
    argue about it? That's fine. Here ya go - Your parole (or whatever they
    call it) is now canceled, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass
    go, do not collect $200, end of discussion. Bailiff, remand him into
    custody. Wanna open your mouth again so I can slap a contempt of court
    charge on top of everything else?"

    My further bet is that such devices *MUST* be installed by a specific
    person designated by the court, otherwise, the perp is considered to be
    refusing to comply with his terms of parole, and once again gets jailed.

    Unless you're one of the people the court approves, and/or the maker of
    the device being used, I dont think you've got a prayer of putting
    together something acceptable. You might brew something up, sure. It
    might even be better than what the court currently uses. But keep in
    mind that part of the reason for these things is specifically to make
    driving inconvenient/impossible for drunks. Secondary effect that's not
    likley to be publically spoken: A nice bit of income for the court,
    since these devices are usually charged to the offender as part of their
    sentence, and the price of both unit and installation is deliberately
    set punishingly high. Actual value is probably 10-20 bucks a unit, if
    that, with an actual installation/maintenance cost of something like a
    hundred bucks. Likely "sale price" to the person using it is likely to
    be in the high hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, with the
    installation cost likely being jacked just as high.

    They aren't SUPPOSED to be cheap/easy/convenient. They're intended to be
    punishment, and the more expensive, difficult, and inconvenient they can
    be made for the drunk to use, the better both court and "Average
    non-drunk-driver" on the street likes it.
  4. Or one extreme DUI. They're also ungodly expensive - I don't know if the OP
    had cost concerns... but besides having to breathalyze yourself to start the
    car, you have to do it at random times while driving, otherwise your car
    shuts off. Obviously this is to counteract a friend blowing for you to start
    the car.

    Jason Pawloski
  5. Guest

    One DUI and that should be it for you.

    Expensive? Tell that to the kids whose dad doesn't make it home from work
    because some drunk SOB took him out.

    Picture the drunk blowing his analyzer, talking on the cell phone, and
    eating a big Mac, with a beer between his legs..... I'm feeling real safe
    on the road...... Hang em high the first time, and put an end to this kind
    of crap.

    You drive drunk, you learn to take public transit, or you just walk for
    the rest of your life. (until you retire and the government gives you a
    free electric scooter.

  6. Don Bruder

    Don Bruder Guest

    Ayup, I can go with that concept *REAL* easy, despite having *VERY*
    strong "stop 'the war on (some) drugs'" feelings. A drunk behind the
    wheel is a proven wreck looking for a place to happen. (and seemingly,
    one usually involving an innocent bystander of some type who goes home
    in an urn or a wheelchair, while drunk goes to the tank, sleeps it off,
    and bails out the door the next morning fresh as a daisy)

    I wouldn't even be particuarly unhappy to see a law passed along the
    lines of "Blow "you're drunk" on the roadside test, you go directly to
    the joint, where you spend the next 10 years waking up to ten strokes of
    the cane, followed by 14 hours of "makin' little ones outta big ones".

    Stupid should be painful - And driving drunk is just about as stupid as
    it gets. Ergo it should be as painful as it can possibly be made.
  7. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Adult Supervision.

  8. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Imagine if sober people would bother to take responsibility for operating
    their vehicle in a safe manner, even in the presence of road hazards. "Gee,
    officer, I was just minding my own business, and this tree jumped out in
    front of me..."

    A drunk driver is a road hazard, nothing more or less. Blaming "the drunk
    driver" is just a cop-out to evade responsibility for one's own negligence.

  9. Guest

    What you describe about the trees is called an accident. When someone
    drinks, and then drives a car and kills someone, that is premeditated
    murder, and deserves the death penalty.

    I didn't think you would agree, so I am not surprised. You drink, you
    drive, you kill, you die.

  10. Don Bruder

    Don Bruder Guest

    Ah, but therein lies the rub, Rich - A tree/signpost/etc. is a static
    hazard that can be avoided/evaded. A drunk behind the wheel, on the
    other hand, is an unpredictable variable in an already quite complex
    task. One that can (and at times DOES) actively "jump out in front of
    you" with no reason or warning - or change from a mobile to a non-mobile
    hazard at a moment's notice, with no indication that he/she/it actually
    is a hazard.

    Granted, it IS every driver's duty to deal with road hazards. However,
    attempting to handle a hazard that gives no clue that it IS a hazard
    until it suddenly manifests as one by slamming on its brakes for a
    hallucinatory elephant, or dodging into your lane just as your "point of
    no return" is reached, is NOT something that anyone is able to cope with.

    Road hazards aren't something that can be eliminated. They must be dealt
    with. We agree that far. But a drunk isn't "a road hazard". A drunk
    behind the wheel is an active threat, in my estimation no different in
    any way, shape, or form, than a hidden sniper with a high-powered rifle
    fliping a coin to decide "Do I shoot this one, or let him go by?"

    The only distinction between the two is the brand of "rifle" and the
    size of "ammunition" being used.
  11. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Grise is our resident village idiot. (My spell checker just suggested
    substituting Grime for Grise... how appropriate :)

    ...Jim Thompson
  12. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I presume you are describing a situation where this is not an order of
    the court but is a voluntary precautionary addition? Seems like some
    sort of confusing reaction time measurement might work to some degree.
  13. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    If the guy's a responsible enough drinker to bother to check his
    breath, he's probably responsible enough to say, "Well, guess I'll
    get a ride this time." IOW, if you've had so much that you need to
    check, you've had too much.

    Good Luck!
  14. Guy Macon

    Guy Macon Guest

    He is also remarkably thin-skinned. A while back he plonked me out
    of the blue while I was enaging in banter not unlike his own, and
    yet when I plonked him he started whining about it in random posts
    and hasn't stopped since. I don't mind a fellow who enjoys light
    hearted pseudo-insult banter between friends, and I don't mind a
    fellow who treats others with respect and dignity and expects to be
    treated the same, but a "I can dish it out but I can't take it"
    mixture is annoying.

    At least Genome and John Larkin are full-time flamers and
    shit-stirrers. I like it when the bottom feeders self-identify
    early on so that I can killfile them and never see them again :)
  15. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    No, _THIS_ is the rub. Every Single Car Is Out To Get You. Ever heard of
    "Defensive Driving", or "The Virtual Car"? The Virtual Car is an aspect
    of Defensive Driving - my virtual car extends one car length in front
    of me for every 10 MPH, and to the sides and back as far as I can see.
    Yes, cars will move unpredictably, and "jump out in front of you", but
    if you're not already driving like a doughhead, you WILL have time to
    respond to the new threat. Two tons of metal will, after all, continue
    to obey Newton's Laws of Motion.
    It certainly is! So is a Tank Truck with a flat tire. EVERY SINGLE THING
    Yes, an active threat. So it behooves you to be especially alert while
    driving amongst them, wouldn't you agree?
    Except for the fact that you're not running at the rifle at 85 MPH.

    Never mind this is exactly the kind of silly red herring that the blame
    set always throws up when the facts fail them. For Example, the drunk
    isn't "hidden" unless you're driving negligently.

    You're still trying to make excuses, and evade responsibility by blaming
    others for what comes down to your own negligence.

    Trying to make others responsible for your personal well-being is one
    of the reasons society is going down the toilet.

  16. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    And the one who isn't drunk has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever
    for the safe operation of his own vehicle?

    Sorry, it doesn't wash. That's just the mentality of blame.
    I say, if you kill yourself driving, tough.

  17. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Thompson, you seem to have such a way of making contributions of such
    insetimable value, I stand in awe of your example.

    Thanks for once again displaying a level of sophistication and class
    that hasn't been achieved on USENET in quite some time.


    (Well, at least he got the right vowel.)
  18. Guest

    I think you are just fishing for a reaction here. Are you implying that a
    person moving at 70 mph northbound, has any chance at all to cope with a
    drunk who crosses the median fromthe southbound lane at 70mph and heads
    straight for them?

    Are you saying that a person who moves through an intersection, along with
    other traffic, has any say in whether a person who runs the red light at
    high speed, t-bones them? Are you trying to absolve the drunk driver from
    responsibility? We all have to drive defensively, but that means WE ALL
    have to, which includes the drunk. Not all defensive moves in a car are
    going to avoid the crash. If we are all driving defensively, does that
    mean there is no one to blame for a crash?

    Besides, tell your story of 'no blame' to my best friend who's daughter
    was WALKING home from school, but never made it. Explain what her "virtual
    car" ought to look like, and explain how the drunken bastard ought not be
    accountable for drinking, getting into his 2 ton vehicle, and driving it
    on the sidewalk where she was walking and a laughing with her friends. I
    suppose you think she is somehow liable, because she was not paying
    attention to traffic on the sidewalk, or because she was not "walking
    defensively" and using rear view mirrors to monitor the cars moving along
    the sidewalk?

    Some of the time, I am with you on your positions, and other times, I
    enjoy it as just a lot of friction between points of view. This one is
    over the top, highly personal, and really a no brainer for anyone with a
    modicum of intelligence. We need to hear from our friends in Germany, and
    other nations about how they deal with drunk drivers. It ain't all pretty.

    If you drink, and you drive, and you kill, you should die. End of story.
    Sure, and if you kill my child and survive the wreck, you should be killed

  19. Clarence_A

    Clarence_A Guest

    What has this Fictional BS to do with Electronics?
  20. Clarence_A

    Clarence_A Guest

    Sounds more like he is trying to give car-jackers an edge while
    you are trying to start you car.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day