To me this is telling drinkers to continue drinking, just try to keep under the numbers. The lesson for the first time user should be to never drink if driving is in the near future. Get your designated driver, call a cab, maybe not drink!
To encourage this is to say, whoops, you violated a random number and keep playing roulette with the public's life.
Maybe encourage people to have the tester at their parties so their guests will be safer from prosecution.

Of course, if the license to drive were suspended after the first conviction--that might make a dent in the number of deaths and accidents attributed to repeat offenders.

I agree that penalties for drunk driving are way to lenient right now. Too many people are being killed. Make the penalties stronger and enforce the laws more vigorously.

My suggestion is a mandatory jail sentence after the first conviction and a mandatory drivers license retest (written and driving) when you get out if you want your license back.

Innocent lives are at stake.

Latest Police Report Log, issued 12/29/2014:

12/21/2014 01:23 Ross/Oregon CVC23152(A) DUI
12/21/2014 01:34 Ramona/Hamilton CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/21/2014 03:52 200 block Alma CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/21/2014 13:13 200 block Forest CVC14601.1(A) Suspended License
12/21/2014 14:02 321 California Ave CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/23/2014 00:45 600 Emerson St CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/23/2014 08:30 800 blk Embarcadero CVC14601.1(A) Suspended License
and 14601.2(A) driving with license revoked for DUI
and 14601.5(A) driving with license revoked for refusing DUI test
and 23247(E) driving vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock
12/23/2014 21:40 E Charleston/San Antonio CVC14601.1(A) Suspended License
12/24/2014 01:01 100 Forest Ave CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/24/2014 01:35 400 block Emerson CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/24/2014 12:35 600 block E Meadow CVC14601.31(A) Suspended Habitual Offender
12/24/2014 12:45 300 block Bryant CVC14601.1(A) Suspended License
12/24/2014 13:01 E Meadow/Fabian CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
12/24/2014 21:00 Bryant/Oregon CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%
and 14601.1(A) Suspended License
12/24/2014 21:54 Woodland/Manhattan CVC14601.1(A) Suspended License
12/25/2014 00:51 Ramona/Hamilton CVC23152(A&B) DUI > 0.08%

This represents well over a thousand people driving around Palo Alto with a suspended license and/or drunk, if as the article says, "Conservative estimates show that a first-time convicted offender has driven drunk at least 80 times prior to being arrested."

It's a step, but only baby step in the right direction. Each incident of drunk driving should result in an automatic suspension of driving privileges, as is the case in many countries, along with a heavy fine and a prison sentence if appropriate.

Seems to me there would be many ways to work around this device.

Every car should come equipped with such a device.

Cities of residence of the sixteen drivers whose citations are listed in Musical's post:

Palo Alto -- 3
Stanford -- 1
East Palo Alto -- 2
Menlo Park -- 1
Mountain View -- 2
Redwood City -- 2
San Jose -- 3
Gilroy -- 1
Wiiluku, HI -- 1

New Police Report Log, issued 12/30/2014, lists 7 more DUIs and 4 suspended licenses.

For those who recommend jail time -- the jails are not big enough, and way too expensive.

I think this is a good idea, and the technology to make these devices is getting better.

Mauricio, you are wrong. "automatic suspension of driving privileges" does not work. That is the reason the interlock was invented. More than half of drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive, and that includes drinkers. The interlock is the only solution that really takes these people off the road. And there are not many ways to work around the device - it records the data, and if the records don't match up right, you are in real trouble. And Gregory, the devices prevent a car from starting at a very low BAC level - about .02.

> "automatic suspension of driving privileges" does not work.

Doesn't work "to do what"? Stop drunk driving? Or driving without a license.

Certainly the number of illegals in the US driving with licenses shows that the law is no deterent from people who are disinclined to follow the rules. While automatic suspensions might not work as totally, they will go a long way towards dealing with people who are first time offenders.

Certainly let's add the hardware, but it's hard to believe that hardcore drunks won't find ways to defeat the device. Asking someone else to start the car, or bypassing the device with another device, or just leaving the car running .. there are always ways for the hardcore drinker to get another drink, and get behind the wheel.

Return the device for service every 30 days, and pay $50 maintenance fee? What a hassle. This is a great idea! I think the fee should be much higher, however. Hitting people in the pocketbook is a good deterrent (I'll never run a yellow light again after my $450 red-light camera ticket in Menlo Park. We have the money, but what a waste!).

Sure, someone else could start the car for the drunk, but who would want to? This is a great deterrent, not perfect, but better than nothing.

There must be a way to stop drivers high on pot too.

How about a device to stop people from texting while driving, using their cell phones??

The DUI driver can have someone else turn on the car and have their breath measured, then change seats and take over the driving.

What if their drug of choice is not really alcohol?

What if they drive someone else's car?

What if someone else has to drive their car?

What if they have more than one car, or the car is registered, or re-registered to their spouse?

I wonder about how much money the tech companies who make this device have contributed to these politicians?

It seems like a good idea, if all the loose ends can be accounted for.

The thing is that when I see people driving who I imagine are drunk they are driving crazy. I once saw this guy driving all over Middlefield late night in Atherton. He actually seemed to try to hit me, so I let him pass me way up there, and then he pulled over and stopped. I called the police to report him, but I did not get the exact make of car or the license. I just reported him going south on Middlefield into Menlo Park and took another route.

Another time I saw a semi-trailer drifting all over try road from Menlo Park to Hillsdale on 101.

I think a better technological solution might be to have sensors in all cars that can detect uncoordinated driving typical of problem people. That might account for drugs, alcohol, dementia, senility, lack of sleep or a stroke or spell, or just playing around in the car. The problem would be ... what action to take? Blink the lights, sound the horn, radio the police?

Technology is moving so fast that even if this is done it may only be in place for 20 years or so until we have self-deiving cars.

Sorry, I meant El Camino, not Middlefield (above)

Hitting people in the pocketbook is not a good option.

The people who need to drive the most need to go to work.

I heard that the country of Sweden has a sliding scale for criminal fines and I think it is a great idea ... that sadly will not be implemented in the US. Now, that would hit all people in the pocketbook equally.

If a person making minimum wage pays $50, a very wealthy person making several million a year should pay $5000, and a regular middle income person should pay maybe $500 ... something like that, otherwise we just make a roads safe from poor drunks, not the rich ones.

Why do I get the feeling Senator Hill has a stake in this "lame and beatable" technology.

How about vehicle forfeiture.

@Crescent Park anon:
Interesting idea about the Swedish sliding scale of fines. The consequences of a DUI are much greater than the fine for many offenders, particularly the damage to their careers. That should be a bigger deterrent than the amount of the fine.