Good job NJ. Good thing this was cut off at just under 2 times the legal limit before these devices are being considered. I wonder how much kickback money is being sent to the state from the device manufacturer? Another example of why we need big brother watching over the masses! Give me a flipping break!
As all others I think this is a very good step in the direction to helping prevent reoccuring offenses. It will be interesting to see the statistics that come out of this new system as far as reoccurences and declines in accidents etc.
This seems like a step in the right direction and away from the “one size fits all” thinking the MADD groups have been pushing on us for years.
More efforts should be made at helping people make informed judgments about how much is too much. The person who blows a .15 knows he’s over the limit. The person who blows .08 may be trying to be responsible, and is not quite sure what his actual BAC is. We need affordable, reliable and accessible personal BAC measurement devices, and bars should have a complimentary and discreetly placed device as well.
what if that person is driving someone else’s vehicle? how is the interlock ignition going to work? it won’t! if that person is married, do you need it in both cars? you are causing more problems with this piece of equipment. you should be taking away their licenses. if they need to get to work, let them use public transportation. afterall, one less vehicle will help w/the air pollution problems. it will also slow down those folks that keep getting drunk and causing the insurances to go up! nice idea, but you can’t hold another person accountable for that person’s actions, if you allow them to drive your car. but you should be aware that they have a dwi and what can happen not only to your vehicle, but your insurance. truthfully, this only alleviates the person driving his own vehicle. if this fella is driving a company vehicle or the government vehicle, are you going to force them to have that vehicle interlocked? too many loopholes!!!
Sir, this is more MADD backed legislation. I find it interesting that MADD always looks at a reactionary approach to the issue. Catch them, steal their cash and have them pay for an IID. Want to bet MADD has their members owning these little rip off shops?
In addition, we are all on the band wagon against distracted driving. How does a guy driving 65 down the highway having to fumble around for the little MADD tool and blow into it not qualify as distracted driving?
ANy legislator that voted for this MADD backed legislation that does nothing to save lives should be voted out of office. They are only pandering for votes.
Good job NJ. Good thing this was cut off at just under 2 times the legal limit before these devices are being considered. I wonder how much kickback money is being sent to the state from the device manufacturer? Another example of why we need big brother watching over the masses! Give me a flipping break!
Why not confiscate the bike til he proves he has twice the minimum liability requirement?
I think this is a great idea. Every state should adopt similar legislation.
As all others I think this is a very good step in the direction to helping prevent reoccuring offenses. It will be interesting to see the statistics that come out of this new system as far as reoccurences and declines in accidents etc.
This seems like a step in the right direction and away from the “one size fits all” thinking the MADD groups have been pushing on us for years.
More efforts should be made at helping people make informed judgments about how much is too much. The person who blows a .15 knows he’s over the limit. The person who blows .08 may be trying to be responsible, and is not quite sure what his actual BAC is. We need affordable, reliable and accessible personal BAC measurement devices, and bars should have a complimentary and discreetly placed device as well.
here’s the problem:
what if that person is driving someone else’s vehicle? how is the interlock ignition going to work? it won’t! if that person is married, do you need it in both cars? you are causing more problems with this piece of equipment. you should be taking away their licenses. if they need to get to work, let them use public transportation. afterall, one less vehicle will help w/the air pollution problems. it will also slow down those folks that keep getting drunk and causing the insurances to go up! nice idea, but you can’t hold another person accountable for that person’s actions, if you allow them to drive your car. but you should be aware that they have a dwi and what can happen not only to your vehicle, but your insurance. truthfully, this only alleviates the person driving his own vehicle. if this fella is driving a company vehicle or the government vehicle, are you going to force them to have that vehicle interlocked? too many loopholes!!!
Sir, this is more MADD backed legislation. I find it interesting that MADD always looks at a reactionary approach to the issue. Catch them, steal their cash and have them pay for an IID. Want to bet MADD has their members owning these little rip off shops?
In addition, we are all on the band wagon against distracted driving. How does a guy driving 65 down the highway having to fumble around for the little MADD tool and blow into it not qualify as distracted driving?
ANy legislator that voted for this MADD backed legislation that does nothing to save lives should be voted out of office. They are only pandering for votes.