6 ms·

>They're only allowed to use a breathalyser if they have reason to suspect someone is drunk That is a weird rule.

• tptacek 13y ago
  It sure doesn't seem weird to me. Breathalyzers are invasive.
  • ama729 13y ago
    Different perspective I think. Here (I live in Europe) they make routine breath tests during the holidays and week end for every car in X place (not surprisingly close to bars and clubs, but not always). As a driver, I'm glad they try to reduce drunk driving, and I don't see how they could do it without regular tests (which are less invasive, than say, car that don't turn on if you fail the breath test inside the car. Yes, that was proposed at some point)
    • nitrogen 13y ago
      ...car that don't turn on if you fail the breath test inside the car.... From what I've heard, these already exist for repeat DUIs.
      • ewoodrich 13y ago
        They're called an ignition interlock [1]. And now all 50 states allow them for a DUII penalty in some form. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device
    • improv32 13y ago
      It's an inconvenience, but the thing that makes me most averse to that system is that it presumes guilt. Here in the US, cops are not allowed (though enforcement is lax) to detain you for any reason without reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime.
    • jmccree 13y ago
      The US supreme court ruled that DUI checkpoints, where drivers may be stopped for a brief (~30 second) questioning to see if they appear drunk, but no answers are legally required, are legal here. This was a controversial decision and several states either passed laws or their existing state constitution prevent dui checkpoints. The idea of a forced breath test without any evidence of intoxication is simply mind boggling to me.
      • DanBC 13y ago
        I think people are okay with it if police are friendly and polite, and if there's some benefit. Mass breath-testing programme always get a few complaints, but I think they'd get a lot more if people realised how few drunk drivers are caught, or if police were rude. Blowing into a tube for X seconds is invasive, but sobriety tests (walking a straight line, touching your nose, etc) feel weirder to me. (I realise that in both US and UK neither of these can be done unless they think you're drunk, and GP post was talking about tests done with no suspicion of drunkeness).
      • philwelch 13y ago
        If you're driving a 5000 pound vehicle on public motorways, I don't see any problem with it. Driving is a privilege that's contingent upon following the rules, not a right.
        • SamReidHughes 13y ago
          Actually, your worldview is wrong, and mine is right, and driving is a human right that is not contingent on giving up privacy rights, right to not have your car searched, or other rights.
          • placeybordeaux 13y ago
            Are you serious? Where did you get the idea that driving is a human right?
            • 13y ago
    • livepreview 13y ago
      Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior? I'm actually not opposed to breathalyzers inside of the car - it seems far less invasive than cops doing it for you, with the authority to ruin your life. If the car won't let you drive, call a friend or a taxi. In any event, I'd prefer to avoid the hassle and feeling of being a suspected criminal that accompanies being stopped on the way home at a checkpoint. Papers please? (jk...?)
      • Anderkent 13y ago
        >Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior? You might notice someone being completely drunk that way, but not someone who's just moderately drunk reacting 10 times slower; unless something happens, of course, but you don't want that either.