GOOD LORD MAN . NO WAY The government does not need to be behind the wheel or in the bedrooms of law abiding citizens. Being held accountable for your actions is a different story. Most people feel the pain of their actions when you jump in their wallet.Money makes for a great deterent. Good drivers should get tax breaks and bad drivers no breaks. Most alcoholics could care less either way.

actually that question has been brought up before - lol. Pretty SOP here in Texas - not uncommon for first offenders to get interlock devices - they are expensive, they mess up all the time, and something as simple as spearmint gum can lock them up - the DWI atty I work for always tries to fight them for the client, but needless to say the judge wins out - NOW - if a person can show continuous problems with the device (which is not uncommon) then it's easier to get the judge to remove but unfortunately if you want to dirve, then it's a work permit license - and that's pricey and you are restricted to certain hours of operation and certain directions to and from work -

Good god don ya think the government is taken way all are rights as it is? Putting interlocks in all vehicles please. As far as dui's that's another story. as the saying goes if ya play ya pay. I had one for a year didn't bother me. I was grateful I could at least drive.

820 day till election or close to it.

I really don't think so. Times are hard enough as it is, and others should not have to pay for the foolishness of people that do drink and drive. But I do think there should be a lot more strict follow up on those that do get caught. Perhaps a two year probation period where you need to show some accountability, and that you are staying clean. James

Why would I want to pay for someone elses dumbass stunt? In less than a week hackers would find a way to bypass them and they'd be worthless anyway.
You might as well have everyone wear ankle SCRAM bracelets so we won't get DIP arrests.
You cannot legislate personal responsibility.

I disagree with everyone. Social changes alway cost money and are an impost even onto people who aren't the offenders.

Greg I agree that people need to be accountable for their actions - but lets face it many aren't - I was a drink driver in my drinking and didn't stop until I stopped drinking. But how many people die or have horrific injuries as a result of OTHER PEOPLE'S alcohol abuse and drink driving? THEY sre the ones who suffer as a result of an alki or even just a normal drinker who drink drives.

If there are technical problems with the devices that need to be sorted out, that need to be done - it's simply a matter of will and money on behalf of the Government's agencies and the research and development companies they sub-contract to.

Do you object to the law that seat belts need to be installed in every car and used by all drivers (except pregnant women etc)?? Do you object to all the lives that technology has saved?

Actually Wendy I do object to seat belt laws. Yes they do prolong life but I still don't like wearing it and if it wern't the law I wouldn't. The difference is that my not wearing a seat belt won't kill anyone else...my driving drunk would. As far as the interlock device on all cars...of course not. However on first time DUI sure...make it mandatory for a year.

I totally disagree too. I think it would totally be a waste of government time and money. Everyone should not have to blow to start their car. That would be government too much in our business. There isn't enough money to keep enough police on the streets these days just to keep up with the violence going on. Waste of freedom.

this is wweird, because I'm a huge rights person and very against seat belt laws, etc. However, what about the rights of the thousands killed by the drunk drivers we've been unable to stop any other way??
Tough question, but the technology would improve with mass production and dwi would pretty much disappear in ten years.
I'm not even sure where I stand on this but it's a question that needs to be asked. As for the cost, you're already paying higher insurance cost because of drunk drivers.
The darker question is is the government too vested in the current system? Would a "cure" be bad for them?

C,mon peeps you really think that will detour an alcoholic to think before drinking and driving. It's common around here and common knowledge on keeping a sober person to blow into it every 5 minutes to keep the car a rollin'.
Scram is where it's at for habitual drunkards.
Let them try to install one of those on my wife's car, wow WW3.
Besides there is a big difference between a person making a bad call and the habitual drinker and driver.

no difference that night. Booze and gas don't mix, period.
and yes scamers would get around it, but it would reduce the problem. besides if your sober and you help a drunk driver drive you should be co-liable

How about make the punishment fit the crime? What kind of punishment would fit a DUI with the death of oanter person involved?

I dunno denny but isn't our philosopy here part of the problem? DWI is sort of mildly bad, but if someone gets hurt it's wicked bad. Whereas the potential for someone to get hurt is always there, so why not act accordingly?
first offence , evaluatiomn, treatment if needed , no licence for two years, second you're walking for a decade or more.

I have always thought patent laws would help. The constitution and attorneys will not allow for this.
1st DWI= orange florescent license plate that reads "I'm A dRuNk!!!, followed by the usual informative nature of our disease(therapy whatever)
2nd DWI= Cut their hands off (it's a joke) but certainly not a joke in other countries where there are no DWI's.

read big bears post about the 20 year old drunk driver who killed a father and three sons. We could nearly eliminate this.