While it wasn't about the most interesting - and somewhat disturbing - case of the day (click here for more on that one), a discussion about drink driving gave me the fuel for today's musings.

I was talking to my team about the penalty involving the installation of an Interlock device.

If you, like some on my team, weren't aware, Interlock is an electronic device attached to a vehicle's ignition system that will only allow the car to start after the driver blows into it and registers no presence of alcohol.

It also typically includes a camera taking photos of the person using it to prevent any tampering with the system.

One of my team then asked why that wasn't standard on all vehicles...

To be fair they aren't a drinker, but it's an interesting point to ponder isn't it?

Driving with alcohol in your system is demonstrably dangerous, often fatal.

It's an issue central to messages of driver safety, alongside speeding, mobile phone use and tiredness.

So why not have a system in place that prevents anyone from getting behind the wheel if they've been drinking.

It's about the influence of that alcohol I hear you say.

Yep, there's a line in the sand drawn up to say anything on one side of that line is dangerous, and just on the other is acceptable.

However, that only applies to alcohol. If you have drugs in your system you can be penalised regardless of the "level" because you're not tested for its effect on you, just if it's present.

And one could argue all-too-legal alcohol causes far more health, welfare and social issues than cannabis for example.

Would it be so terrible to have a safety system in place to prevent anyone drinking from taking the wheel?

Perhaps it could become a standard safety feature just as seatbelts once did?

Or perhaps driverless cars becoming standard will arrive first and this is a moot point!

As always, I welcome your thoughts, and have a wonderful weekend.

- Ben Smyth, ACM Editor