Having to blow while you're already driving is supposed to be a feature. It's to dissuade people from successfully turning on their car, immediately drinking, and then driving.

▲

AuryGlenz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

30 seconds seems a bit fast to force that though, no? There’s not always a safe place to pull over.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

stronglikedan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it only kicks in at 45 or lower (i.e., not the highway) then there's always a safe place to pull over. I have no idea how it actually does work though, thankfully.

	▲	lazide 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Stuck in stop and go traffic on the freeway doesn’t sound like a good place to me, but I’ve never had a DUI so meh?

▲

shimman 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this comment a joke or do you not understand how dangerous it is to ask a driver to blow into a breathalyzer while operating a vehicle?

All this seems to be is a company collecting corporate welfare while doing the bare minimum. Such companies should both be sanctioned and have their leadership investigated for potential fraud.

If you receive public dollars to function, the public should expect some modicum of sensibility and accountability.

▲

KumaBear 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think they shouldn’t be driving in the first place. Suspend DL for one year and move on.

▲

array_key_first 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The main problem is that, in a lot of parts of the US, your options are "drive or be homeless".

The ideal solution is needing less driving overall. But excessively punishing people doesn't fix the problem. They're still gonna drive, most likely.

▲

syntheticnature 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The person I mentioned in my story upthread had the one-year suspension followed by the interlock requirement for another year

▲

londons_explore 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the interlock for life.

Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is clearly a worse outcome.

▲

MisterTea 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction....

No it is not.

▲

FireBeyond an hour ago | parent [-]

Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is.

You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.

	▲	MisterTea 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The wording used did not indicate they were taking about a repeat offender.

▲

HeyLaughingBoy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist.

Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.

▲

ourmandave 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Especially in rural areas

Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license.

They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.

	▲	HeyLaughingBoy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My wife used to tend bar at a place where one of the regulars would drive there on a tractor for a similar reason.

▲

mothballed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.

▲

longislandguido 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

shimman 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh wow so the judicial system is developing the software? It's not a private company that only exists to fulfill a government need with zero accountability? What were the terms of their contract? What was their SLA? How do users engage with the company?

Sorry but these companies are all scams thrusted upon the public. Any business that takes government money should be held accountable or compelled to engage in workplace democracy.

I'm not a fan of companies making garbage products while getting rich off of public dollars. Just because some people like corporate welfare doesn't mean the vast majority of the public likes it.

	▲	lazide 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are accountable…. To the courts? What does workplace accountability actually concretely mean here? It’s the classic enterprise software issue too - the people doing the buying/selecting are not the people actually using it.