New Law Requires Breathalyzers On Car...

New Law Requires Breathalyzers On Cars Of Illinois Drunk Drivers

There are 33 comments on the NBC 5 Chicago story from Jun 24, 2008, titled New Law Requires Breathalyzers On Cars Of Illinois Drunk Drivers. In it, NBC 5 Chicago reports that:

Starting next year, Illinois motorists charged with first-time drunken driving offenses will have to do the same thing Cedric Benson will have to do -- blow into a Breathalyzer before starting their cars.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC 5 Chicago.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
DLCL

Montgomery, IL

#1 Jun 24, 2008
What happens when the person has someone else do the blow for them? I think these should have one more content added to them. A camera, so it shows who actually did the blow test.
Patrick

Chicago, IL

#2 Jun 24, 2008
How about this?

When a person gets caught driving drunk, their license is revoked permanently and their car is taken and sold at auction. They would receive the proceeds of the sale, unless they damaged someone's property while driving drunk, in which case that money would go to them.

Also, place them on a blacklist that car dealerships must check before they are allowed to sell a car. If that person's name is on that list, sorry, they don't get to drive a car.

I'm sick of pandering to drunk drivers, who get caught time and time again, and the only time something really happens is when they kill someone.

In this day and age, with all of the public service announcements, etc., there is no excuse for driving while drunk. None whatsoever.

Let's start treating drunk drivers like they deserve to be treated. Like children who get caught doing something that they know that they shouldn't do, and take away their privilege of driving.

Forever.

Then we don't have to invest money into programs like putting Breathalyzers into cars.
DLCL

Montgomery, IL

#3 Jun 24, 2008
Maybe they also need to include a camera, so they know who actually did the blow test.

Since: Apr 08

Chicago, IL

#4 Jun 24, 2008
Patrick wrote:
How about this?
When a person gets caught driving drunk, their license is revoked permanently and their car is taken and sold at auction. They would receive the proceeds of the sale, unless they damaged someone's property while driving drunk, in which case that money would go to them.
Also, place them on a blacklist that car dealerships must check before they are allowed to sell a car. If that person's name is on that list, sorry, they don't get to drive a car.
I'm sick of pandering to drunk drivers, who get caught time and time again, and the only time something really happens is when they kill someone.
In this day and age, with all of the public service announcements, etc., there is no excuse for driving while drunk. None whatsoever.
Let's start treating drunk drivers like they deserve to be treated. Like children who get caught doing something that they know that they shouldn't do, and take away their privilege of driving.
Forever.
Then we don't have to invest money into programs like putting Breathalyzers into cars.
Everybody makes mistakes, so your ideas would be fine by me for REPEAT offenders. Also it used to be that ignition control breathalyzers was at the owners expense, not the states. Not sure if thats changed or not.
Miss Kitty

Wheaton, IL

#5 Jun 24, 2008
What's next? Breathalyzers to see if you smoked too much pot? Or drank too much coffee?
Patrick

Chicago, IL

#6 Jun 24, 2008
_DiMz_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody makes mistakes, so your ideas would be fine by me for REPEAT offenders. Also it used to be that ignition control breathalyzers was at the owners expense, not the states. Not sure if thats changed or not.
I understand your perspective about repeat offenders, but can I ask something?

Is getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk a mistake or a deliberate act?

Again, I state that with all of the educational resources available today there is no excuse for driving drunk.

Driving drunk is not a mistake. It is a deliberate act. A drunk person does not just fall into a car and start driving. They unlock their car door, sit down, turn the ignition key, put the car in gear, and give the car gas. Those are all deliberate acts.

I think that if we were really serious about ridding our streets of drunk drivers, we would take measures like this.

People who drive drunk prove that they are not capable of accepting the responsibility that comes with the privilege of driving.

If they drive drunk, they should be relieved of that responsibility forever, no second chances. People that drunk drivers kill don't get a second chance at life, so why should irresponsible people who drive drunk get one two?
Correne

Chicago, IL

#7 Jun 24, 2008
Patrick, you sound like my dad when I started driving many years ago. But now I understand where he was coming from. I'll dare say, my father never had to take that action. When will people learn? Drinking and driving don't mix.
Rebel13

Aurora, IL

#8 Jun 24, 2008
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Illinois going to pay the cost if you are found innocent?

Since: Apr 08

Chicago, IL

#9 Jun 24, 2008
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your perspective about repeat offenders, but can I ask something?
Is getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk a mistake or a deliberate act?
Again, I state that with all of the educational resources available today there is no excuse for driving drunk.
Driving drunk is not a mistake. It is a deliberate act. A drunk person does not just fall into a car and start driving. They unlock their car door, sit down, turn the ignition key, put the car in gear, and give the car gas. Those are all deliberate acts.
I think that if we were really serious about ridding our streets of drunk drivers, we would take measures like this.
People who drive drunk prove that they are not capable of accepting the responsibility that comes with the privilege of driving.
If they drive drunk, they should be relieved of that responsibility forever, no second chances. People that drunk drivers kill don't get a second chance at life, so why should irresponsible people who drive drunk get one two?
There are scenarios where one person is absent minded and does not deliberatly do something with intent or harm to others or himself. The purpose of punishment has an element of reform in most cases. I have a friend who was at a wedding for his little brother, flew in from cali for the sunday wedding and had to be back mid day monday for an important closing for his company. He toasted a glass of champagne and had 2 glasses of wine for his bro...he then has to take off to his hotel to get ready for his early morning flight to the hotel 2 miles away....he made an illegal lane change...pulled over, 1 point over the legal limit,lost his job,over 8k in legal fee's and penalties. Guess what he wasnt a drinker to begin with, but vowed never to drink again in his life...this was 8 years ago he's never drank. That was a very condensed story, but let me ask, should this man have gotten the death penatly(figurativly speaking)? He did something stupid regardless, but there was no malice or intent. And he learned from it. Its the idiot repeat offenders in my opinion who have total disregard for themselves or others that should be punished severly. Thats just my 2 cents though.
Patrick

Chicago, IL

#10 Jun 24, 2008
_DiMz_ wrote:
<quoted text>
There are scenarios where one person is absent minded and does not deliberatly do something with intent or harm to others or himself. The purpose of punishment has an element of reform in most cases. I have a friend who was at a wedding for his little brother, flew in from cali for the sunday wedding and had to be back mid day monday for an important closing for his company. He toasted a glass of champagne and had 2 glasses of wine for his bro...he then has to take off to his hotel to get ready for his early morning flight to the hotel 2 miles away....he made an illegal lane change...pulled over, 1 point over the legal limit,lost his job,over 8k in legal fee's and penalties. Guess what he wasnt a drinker to begin with, but vowed never to drink again in his life...this was 8 years ago he's never drank. That was a very condensed story, but let me ask, should this man have gotten the death penatly(figurativly speaking)? He did something stupid regardless, but there was no malice or intent. And he learned from it. Its the idiot repeat offenders in my opinion who have total disregard for themselves or others that should be punished severly. Thats just my 2 cents though.
I understand what you are saying about your friend and his situation, and it's unfortunate that this happened to him, but he did break the law. He drove while legally drunk.

What if he had killed someone while driving under the influence? Would his situation (not a drinker, was in town to celebrate, didn't drink that much)have helped to bring back the person killed? Would it have helped that person's family to overcome the grief and financial burden of the death of their loved one?

No.

I know that what I believe/propose sounds harsh, but we hear too many stories about drunk drivers, and I believe that its time to pull off the mits and get harsh with irresponsible people.

If a person uses a gun to commit a crime, and had a clean record prior to their conviction, they still loose their privelege to legally own a gun.

A car is a weapon, in the right hands just like a gun is, and should be taken away from someone who uses it irresponsible.

Since: Apr 08

Chicago, IL

#11 Jun 24, 2008
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you are saying about your friend and his situation, and it's unfortunate that this happened to him, but he did break the law. He drove while legally drunk.
What if he had killed someone while driving under the influence? Would his situation (not a drinker, was in town to celebrate, didn't drink that much)have helped to bring back the person killed? Would it have helped that person's family to overcome the grief and financial burden of the death of their loved one?
No.
I know that what I believe/propose sounds harsh, but we hear too many stories about drunk drivers, and I believe that its time to pull off the mits and get harsh with irresponsible people.
If a person uses a gun to commit a crime, and had a clean record prior to their conviction, they still loose their privelege to legally own a gun.
A car is a weapon, in the right hands just like a gun is, and should be taken away from someone who uses it irresponsible.
Drinking impairs judgment. Drinking is legal.
Therefore either ban drinking or have all cars come slandered with a breathalyzer. What you propose with such passion is simply
"Punishment does not fit the crime" protocol
Moi

Warrenville, IL

#12 Jun 24, 2008
Most anyone that had a couple of drinks is going to drive.
Someone who has had too many, their mind is thinking that they can't drive.

Alcholism is a disease.(lets just not cater to anyone with disablities? is what I am hearing from the above comments.)

This key ingnition is a great tool.
Mind you tho there are hiccups. A friend of mind had one of those for a period of time.
Buying gasoline triggered a false read. Hopefully the technology has improved.

If someone is going to be stupid enought to blow into the ignition for someone else the consequences become the drivers problem, esp if they get caught and in an accident. AND would you want to pay the fines associated with falsifying an ingnition start.
And if you where in the car, why would you blow to let a drunk driver drive you?

The old saying of having cab fare in your pocket when you go out (more for single women on a date that might not like their date)
is more important today if you go out and drink to have that in your pocket.

Maybe the Secretary of the State should have more info commercials on the new driving laws and their consequences.
People pay more attention when they are aware of what they might loose.
Patrick

Chicago, IL

#13 Jun 24, 2008
An irresponsible drunk driver killing an innocent person, who was doing nothing more than going about their business, is the ultimate punishment to the victim.

Losing the privilege to drive is not life ending. Life goes on for the drunk driver. The same can not be said for the victims who did nothing to deserve what happened to them.

Drinking is legal. Drinking to the point of impairment and then driving is not legal, is irresponsible, and shows that the person is not worthy of the privelege of driving. In some areas, public intoxication is illegal as well.

Why should every car have a Breathalyzer put on it? People who don't drink, or are responsible with their drinking, should not be hassled with that just because of a few irresponsible people.

Take the drunks off of the streets on their first offense, and we won't hear too many stories of repeat offenders taking innocent lives.

To me, that is common sense, and not punishment that does not fit the crime.
Officer L

Atlanta, GA

#14 Jun 24, 2008
Well it is about time! I have no idea what took the state so long to do something like this. But good it needed to be done.

Since: Apr 08

Chicago, IL

#15 Jun 24, 2008
Patrick wrote:
An irresponsible drunk driver killing an innocent person, who was doing nothing more than going about their business, is the ultimate punishment to the victim.
Losing the privilege to drive is not life ending. Life goes on for the drunk driver. The same can not be said for the victims who did nothing to deserve what happened to them.
Drinking is legal. Drinking to the point of impairment and then driving is not legal, is irresponsible, and shows that the person is not worthy of the privelege of driving. In some areas, public intoxication is illegal as well.
Why should every car have a Breathalyzer put on it? People who don't drink, or are responsible with their drinking, should not be hassled with that just because of a few irresponsible people.
Take the drunks off of the streets on their first offense, and we won't hear too many stories of repeat offenders taking innocent lives.
To me, that is common sense, and not punishment that does not fit the crime.
My previous comment was using your logic on the matter.
Now what I dont understand is, your ready to throw the book at 1st time offenders with an iron fist of doom, but yet your against Breathalyzers on all cars?
Also yes, the punishment in your scenario, DOES NOT fit the crime for 1st time offenders (depending on circumstances of course), this is comparable to why we have different degrees of "murder" all way down to Involuntary Manslaughter. Alcohol being legal will have consequences, thats a reality that we need to realistically and rationally and legally deal with as long as it remains as such. We cannot have a legal system that is based on pure emotion.
mike

Northbrook, IL

#16 Jun 24, 2008
Todays DUI laws are nothing more than a corrupt source of revenue for dysfunctional miss-managed municipalities and a windfall profit for insurance companies and attorneys. In studies conducted without the corrupt influence of MADD most "alcohol related" accidents occured with a driver BAC of much more than .10!
Learn the sad truth about today's draconian and unconstitutional DUI laws and the travesty of justice that is the result at www.duiblog.com and www.duigulog.com
Todd

Robbins, IL

#17 Jun 24, 2008
Silly, crazy idea...what about any business with a license to serve alcohol (in a glass to be consumed at the establishment) be required to purchase a breathalizer in which patrons can check (voluntarily) their BAC? This would be useful for people who have been at the establishment for awhile, had a few drinks but none in the past few hours and want to know if their BAC is under the limit (actually millions of people would fall in this group!). I know there are other factors that affect driving ability (sleep, physical abilities, etc.) but this would at least give people leaving establishments the ability to "check" to see that they're under the limit (assuming their BAC isn't going up if they've recently had more drinks). They would need to be released of any legal ramifications, the breathalizer is just an estimate at a specific point in time and can't be held accountable to inaccuracies.
mike

Northbrook, IL

#18 Jun 24, 2008
Which POLITICALLY CONNECTED manufacturing company makes the ignition control breathalizers?
Patrick

Chicago, IL

#19 Jun 24, 2008
_DiMz_ wrote:
<quoted text>
My previous comment was using your logic on the matter.
Now what I dont understand is, your ready to throw the book at 1st time offenders with an iron fist of doom, but yet your against Breathalyzers on all cars?
Also yes, the punishment in your scenario, DOES NOT fit the crime for 1st time offenders (depending on circumstances of course), this is comparable to why we have different degrees of "murder" all way down to Involuntary Manslaughter. Alcohol being legal will have consequences, thats a reality that we need to realistically and rationally and legally deal with as long as it remains as such. We cannot have a legal system that is based on pure emotion.
I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree, although I've enjoyed our discussion on this.

Again, I know that my idea is harsh, but how many times have we all heard of people who have been convicted more than one time of DUI getting into an accident and killing people?

I'm tired of it, personally, and if people won't be responsible in their drinking, then they should be relieved of their privilege of driving.

Driving is not a necessity of life. Sure, it would make life inconvenient on many levels, but it is not a necessity of life.

To me, in my mind, I view giving the keys to a car back to a person who drove drunk as akin to giving a gun back to someone who tried to kill someone and failed their first time.

Every time a drunk person drives, its a roll of the dice as to whether they injure or kill someone who had nothing to do with their choice to drive while impaired.

If a person doesn't want risk having their driving privileges taken from them forever, loose their car, etc., all they have to do is simply make sure that if they plan to go out and throw some back (which I have nothing against), then they need to be responsible and make sure that they have a way home that does not involve them driving. There is simply no excuse for driving drunk. There is public transportation, friends who could drive, or taxi's. There are any number of ways to prevent oneself from driving while drunk or intoxicated.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion, I've enjoyed this.
Texas Longhorn

Crest Hill, IL

#20 Jun 24, 2008
A whole lot of people wouldn't have their licence if Patrick had his way. Why don't cops just wait outside bars and bust the drunks getting in their cars? Is it because the bar owner would cry about lost business regardless of whose life might be saved? Bottom line is that there is a level of acceptance that it will happen, and a certain amount of risk of death is acceptable just so these businesses can exist. I'm not saying that it's right, but it's the reason why first offenders will never be punished as severe as Patrick would like.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Bears Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 2013 NFL Mock Draft: Current Info for All 32 Fi... (Jan '13) Fri PhartRaider 335
News NFL Extra: Kick return star Devin Hester retire... Fri Fart for Raiders 2
News Packers cut Martellus Bennett, abruptly ending ... Nov '17 Farts Release 4
News Bears beginning to show they'll do 'whatever it... Oct '17 Fart Snax 5
News Chargers send WR Dontrelle Inman to Chicago Bea... Oct '17 Fart Nation 2
News Trailer released for hotly-anticipated Star War... Oct '17 Fart Wars 2
News Keenum takes the reins, Vikings exit Soldier Fi... Oct '17 Fart Joggers 2
More from around the web