Talk:Ignition interlock device/Archive 1

Archive 1

Costs and manufacturers

how much does the interlock system cost, and do you have to have it if you had a DUI. ---Blaine Roberts---

Blaine, I added a link to a place where you can find information about when someone would be required by law to use a "Ignition Interlock Device". I also added some content on the wiki page here. I hope it helps. But in short usually multiple DUI convictions and where the the person was caught driving with a suspended license due to a DUI conviction. FantaOrange (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)FantaOrange

It would be useful to add the manufacturers of these devices. Does anyone have this information? ---Austprime--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.58.78 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I will be needing one of these devices. Had I had one installed in my previous vehicle, I would not be in this position and I would have saved myself thousands of $$$ and grief. As of October 19th 2009 these are the companies I have contacted and the prices I was quoted for Western NY. It will probably differ state to state:

Igntion Interlock of New York Custom Radio 4155 Transit Road, Williamsville, NY. 716-553-9583 Installation $70 $70/mo. maintenance

National Interlock Service 1-800-871-5462 Install $74 $75/mo. maint.

Smart Start 1-800-880-3394 Install $24.95 $74.95/mo. maint.

Sens-o-lock 1-888-300-4580 Install included in $90/mo. maint.

Intoxalock 1-877-777-5020 Installation $80 $65/mo. maintenance

These prices do not include local taxes. Please call yourself and get an up to date quote. They will vary with your location.

Hope this helps. Good Luck.

74.77.110.19 (talk)MK —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

It might help to review WP:NOPRICES. Specific prices and individual models vary widely by location and time. So inclusion in Wikipedia would not be appropriate. WTF? (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need a page on regular interlocks, not just breathalyzers? I would appreciate some info on how they work, as mine is broken and I don't understand how it works. KY Metro (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Besides drawbacks, any evidences in statistics showing its advantages??? (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009

Here's a good link: http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/Draft-Ignition_Interlocks_for_all_Offenders_Overview.pdf --Cflaws000 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See #Finland:

(In Finland) Only 5.7% of the drivers re-offended instead of 30% without the program.

— Wikipedia #Finland

convicted dui 2009

convicted DUI 2009 did program court did not send in amended abstract did the footwork but got fed up drove when I had to got caught driving without a license then the court reverses but only to Jan 31, 2011 go to court on driving without a licence told install a interlocking device and other conditions but the clerk at courthouse in simple terms basically said that they dropped the ball; any help suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenossi (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone facing DUI charges in court should contact a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction for advice. Wikipedia is not licensed or authorized to distribute legal advice -- Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. WTF? (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but I am. I'm a lawyer licensed in all 50 states, Canada, Mexico, and Transnistria-- contact me if you have a DUI/DWI/OUI, I'm known as the best in my field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.24.73 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect reason for repeat analysis

The official reason for requiring random retests while the engine is running - is NOT to prevent tampering by having a friend blow. The retests is officially to prevent the driver from drinking alcohol while driving, after the first blow. Thats why you can get multiple retests in the same run even if the car hasn't been stopped after the first retest.

u said blow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.24.73 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ill change it in the article. Sebastiannielsen (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the primary reason but this FAQ [1] does seem to suggest that preventing someone else blowing in to the device is one reason for retests. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of information and images

I would like for images of the device to be added especially what the "user" has access to. I also note that there is no reference on security or way(s) to bypass the device (that at first hand seems easily manageable), and legal sanctions for doing so for those forced to install it. 95.92.39.32 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of "HOWTO" videos on the web, and other instructions, mostly intended for mechanics who need to disable these IIDs for routine maintenance. It should be possible to cover the subject matter with a general description (unplug the device, cross-connect the ignition and starter wires, with a description of wire colors). If I were a mechanic looking for the actual HOWTO, I would go to a page that fully describes how to bypass the IID, but as a WP reader, I may still be curious what is involved. As a practical matter, I would want to know what the mechanic must do when working on one of these cars (and have in fact looked it up out of curiosity). Unitacx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

False Positives

I have had an ignition interlock for several years and have never had a "false positive" . Recently I went to start my car and got a "violation" but I was not consuming alcohol. I called the provider and they advised to rinse my mouth, clean the mouth piece and retest within the hour. I did and I had an immediate pass. I proceeded to pass 5 more times in rolling retests. I reported this event to my monitoring authority and she asked if I knew what may have set it off. I thought maybe it was an energy drink I had but not sure. About an hour later I was helping my daughter reapply a creme lightener on her hair and felt I was inhaling alcohol fumes so I looked at the ingredients and 2 of the products I used contained 30% alcohol in them. They also had a large amount of fragrance in them which irritated my lungs it was so strong. We were actually on our way to the beauty supply store to buy another kit because the first kit did not have enough to cover all her hair so about 5 minutes before I blew I had this exposure. Are these devices that sensitive and are is there any tests that show these false positives do happen? Thank you for any input. Allinar123 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not directly ... make that *more* directly. This ties in with something called the "partition ratio", described at Breathalyzer#Homeostatic_variables. Typically a breath sample relies on a 2100:1 ratio of BAC-to-breath alcohol. (Those numbers could be far off, but you get the idea.) That's why trace amounts of mouth alcohol affect breath results, but an alcohol wipe won't throw off a blood test. (Alcohol wipes are still not used for BAC tests, because it's sort of hard to disprove that they have no effect.) In your case, you could have touched your lips with the hair s*** and that remained, especially since these products typically have proteins and other ingredients that prevent the substance from immediately dispersing.

My understanding is that a "fail" followed by a "no fail" will be ignored because the change in readings are inconsistent with metabolism of alcohol, much as a "fail" at numbers consistent with death will be ignored -- but you can ask the people on the phone. Still it's best to report these to get your objection "on the record". Also, as was perhaps the case with the hair s***, it is possible that the variation may have been consistent with metabolism of alcohol, so even with a monitoring group who are conscientious, it's best to call. All of this may be material for the article, but very much condensed, perhaps to 1 sentence. Unitacx (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ignition interlock device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141223070302/http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publications/permis/condition_x_en.pdf to http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publications/permis/condition_x_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031204603/http://transportation.unm.edu/pubs/HighCost11x17.pdf to http://transportation.unm.edu/pubs/HighCost11x17.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)