Reply With Quote
revenue raising, but wont address the water issue...lol cali
How long til people are forced to install after driving stoned?!?
revenue raising, but wont address the water issue...lol cali
I doubt that it's a significant revenue generator. Considering how much they will be reducing 2nd offenders and the revenue they provide, it might be a wash. I think it's a great idea. Should significanlty reduce drunk drivers.
Most people instructed to install the interlock device don't do it. It's not like you can physically stop someone from obtaining and driving a car.
IMO, the money grab with the interlock is currently unreasonable
- $120/month for DUI classes
- $80/month for interlock device
- $50-100/month for court fines
If they lower the price to $40 bucks a month people would be far more likely to install it
I know people that have had it here in SA and discussed it at length.
Technically the court wants all cars listed at property to have the interlock installed, but realistically, you need to put all cars in your name on it.......which means you'd have to borrow someone else's car for extended periods of time.
And then you have to blow into the breathalyzer in the car and start it about 2-3 times a day to meet a monthly blow quota. This is so that you avoid su ion that you're driving someone else's car and it also keeps the battery from going dead.
If the car battery goes dead, the interlock will lock up and you won't be able to jump start it. You'll have to pay for towing, reset fees and have to explain to probation officer/judge why it locked up.
so it's $80 for the interlock? does that all go to the state? I think some has to go to the company that services the device. And I wouldn't think many people would risk probation revocation by not putting one on if they were sentenced to.
That is interesting. I was unaware of the monthly blow quota. I've been told the guys involved in towing/resetting/calibrating are basically typical auto shop guys. So you can sometimes pay them off
In California some people purchase "throw away" cars. Get a car for 500 bucks and drive til it's towed for 30 days [and then confiscated]. Obviously you will end up ac ulating 30-day towing hold, court fines and increasing the duration of your DMV suspension but if you have a 1 year interlock suspension =>
$80/month * 12 months = 960 + 300 installation/upkeep ......... $1200
Some people rather roll the dice. Because doing it the right way is so expensive
California is on average $80/month. I believe around $150 for installation and then you need to calibrate it every few months which costs around $50/each time
If you are caught driving with a simple suspension (not revocation) then sometimes the cops allow you to call someone to pick up the car. Then your 2nd time (or first if unlucky) your car is towed and held for 30 days. Which ends up costing around $800. Not counting the couple hundred fines in the DMV
The interlock guarantees people aren't drinking and driving. The price should be lowered so more people participate. The current prices are ridiculous
Yeah...I'll buy that. The more that participate the better. But I think I was originally countering the point that it was just the state trying to generate revenue. If that was the case, seems like they'd just increase their own fees.
Oh yeah, they're also using cameras now to take snap shot and time stamp of who blows into the breathalyzer, so forget having passenger blow it for you.
And if someone other than you is blowing and driving your car at 2:15 am, you're gonna need a real good excuse.
It's been like that for years here in AZ.. You've blown 10 large (minimum) when you blow positive here.
No problem. If someone is blowing, there is no way I'm gonna let them try to drive also.
Statistics argue 1st time DUI offenders successfully drove drunk 80 times before arrest
A (one way) cab to Downtown for me costs over $100. That is assuming I stay sober before AND i arrange a lift to pick up my car the next day (yeah right)
80 * $100 = $8,000. So I came out about even.
It's real easy to get around it. Just don't drink and drive.
Except you have a DUI on your record.
Proof you have never experienced a social or party life
He's a hypocrite. According to my research I'd say around 98% of people who have consumed alcohol have driven drunk at some point.
My courtesy to society is getting plastered at nearby bars so my drunk drive home is on back streets within a mile from home usually.
And I'm sure that is very scientific research...
It was years and years worth of scientific analysis.And I'm sure that is very scientific research...
Drinking and driving just doesnt pay.
It's close
That is the point. It shouldn't be.
In America
- Mass transportation is unreliable or unsafe (check Main Forum)
- Alternate anti-Alcohol solutions are extremely expensive
Why would that be a problem? using a designated driver is the best way not to drive drunk. Getting a first time DUI doesn't mean you have to stop drinking...it just means you have to stop drinking and driving.
Getting a DWI can really suck for a lot of people. Anyone that drives a vehicle for work or even drives their own vehicle for work can get fired or not hired even if they have paid their fines and gotten their licenses back. Company insurers do the screening. I have to send a list of my employees every year to my insurance company for screening.
What's your point as it relates to the OP? Or was the point just so you can say you have employees?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
