Mandatory Car 'Breathalyzers'?

While reading the thread 'Mandatory ‘Big Brother’ Black Boxes In All New Cars From 2015", my mind starting turning. I was completely against the black box idea, as were many others. As a whole I am against government intrusion into the personal lives of citizens. I then started thinking how they could further regulate something as simply as driving. When I came across the idea of making car breathalyzers mandatory, I was interested. Drinking and driving is not a right. To be fair, driving is not even a right. And I am assuming, but I do not think anybody is 'for' drunk driving.

After some research, I found there is a $10 million dollar research program trying to find how to mass produce car breathalyzers. This article is from 2008 so there hasn't been an introduction, but the funding for research is there.
blog.motorists.org...

As recent as Sept 2011, there is a finger analyzer that is 96% effective.
www.extremetech.com...

My issues when the car breathalyzers that I've seen are safety, expenses, and report of drinking to the courts (this is all obviously from convicted drunk drivers).
Safety. I dislike how the person has to blow into the machine every so often to make sure they aren't drunk. I feel as if this take attention of the road.
Expenses. They can range from a few hundred dollars to $1000 and that does not include installation fees.
Report of drinking to the court. I understand these people have been convicted of felonies, but if these were mandatory I feel as if it is extremely intrusive into privacy.

BUT.. With this new finger analyzer, one wouldn't have to take their eyes off the road, they would only be about $200 with mass installation, and they would not have to be programmed to report incidents of trying to start your car while intoxicated.

It would take years to implement as the article states, but 8,000-9,000 lives could be saved annually. I know not everyone is going to agree with me, but I wanted to hear people's thoughts on this. Also, what if it was an option when buying a car like leather seats or power doors? People could choose personal safety and then no one would have to feel violated. Also, parents who buy their children cars could have the option to add this as safety for their children.

Biggest problem I see is the local police would not be able to write as many DUI's and therefore would lose out on a lot of money

--There is a thread on this back from 2008, but it's been 4 years and I wanted to see if the new technology and cost of the finger analyzer changed any opinions.

I can see requiring that for some kind of probation thing, but nothing beyond that.

There's no reason to assume a-priori that I'm drinking and driving, and therefore there is no reason for the breathalyser. To require me to take a breathalyser in order to simply start my car creates a situation where you are assuming, without probable cause, that I am committing a felony and requiring me to prove innocence. I suppose what I'm saying is that it constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.

As for choosing personal safety, if I don't drink, then it's not about personal safety. If I know better than to get wasted when I drink, it's not about personal safety. It's just one more random expense that somebody demands that I get in the name of "safety" when there's a one in a billion chance it would ever come in handy.

I reckon they'd be an awesome idea if they can be done correctly (reliable, accurate results). Hop in the car, turn the key, get breathalyzed and if you're over the limit the immobiliser kicks in until such times as you blow a BAC under the legal limit.

The tricky part will be working out how to prevent a drunk driver from simply getting a passenger to do the test on his behalf. I also don't know how they'd keep the unit accurate over a period of time. Even the top of the range hand-held ones get ridiculously inaccurate if you don't clean the nozzle thoroughly after each use.

reply to post by headorheart


Show me a computer that doesn't malfunction.
Find me wire that cannot be broken.
Then, and only then will I agree that a built in breathalyzer is a good and safe idea.

Using mouthwash right before using a breathalyzer can give a false positive.
Your finger analyzer article is to full of "envisioned," "estimates" and "if" to really be taken seriously.

But go for it, if you want it. Just don't force me to have one as well.

Probably gona get people bitching about Civil liberties, or coming up with absurd scenarios and reasons this is bad IE "what if I am driving on my private land" or "people will just get someone else to start their cars".

Frankly if they could implement this accurately and cheaply I think it would be great, imagine all the teenage deaths avoided from this

Oh do not get me wrong, I am not arguing people could not find a way around it. There is a way around every piece of technology and this feature would likely be hard to maintain accurate. With the issues of mouth wash, that is why I liked the finger reader better. Even if an alcohol wipe was used the technology measures the amount of alcohol in the blood, not on the breath or in this case skin.

I completely respect being against this. I am usually the first one to say that is fine for someone else but do not force me to do it. Interestingly enough, I did not think of the point that this would be assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent. As stated in my OP, I was thinking no one has the right to drink and drive.

I am not saying I'm 100% for this, I'm just looking for food for thought, and I've already gotten some different angles on the topic. Thanks for the responses.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


yes, but mouthwash registers as a immediate failure and can convict you whether drunk or not, I know many that went back to jail sober. but its in the details about only using it one hour before driving...

Before you know it breath mints of any sort will shortly follow as "illegal."

reply to post by headorheart


We have these in Australia for multiple offence DUI's ( ie third strike drink drivers)
Inh my opinion they are just another revenue raising idea from the Government as the offender is ordered by the court to rent the installed units at quite a cost.
If our government was serious about the issue they would limit alcohol purchases, advertising and the business hours -

We have drive in liquor stores here open up to 24 hours a day for crying out loud , what did they think would happen ??!

Originally posted by skonaz
reply to post by headorheart

 

We have drive in liquor stores here open up to 24 hours a day for crying out loud , what did they think would happen ??!

Haha right? I feel like that is just asking for trouble. Convenient for those who party all night long, I guess.

reply to post by headorheart


I completely agree with you on this point

To be fair, driving is not even a right.

I'm 38 years old, I've never driven a car and managed to survive.

As far as "regulating", I think everyone having to blow into a tube to start there car isn't the worst idea in the world. I never feel sorry for the drunk driver who kills himself, but I sure do feel sorry for the people they kill who weren't drinking, weren't breaking any laws, some of which weren't even driving.

So if any kind of law gets passed, be it breathalyzer or the finger thing you speak of, I'm all for it. And the people who don't like it can visit their nearest prison and yell at those who ruined it for everyone else.


I do disagree with the black boxes, but isn't that kinda what GPS and things like OnStar do already? Monitor where you go? And doesn't every cell phone have a GPS now? I don't have one of those either

Losing battle for those who do imho.

I drive very old and very vulnerable cars, and motorcycles. I have two fears -- drunk drivers and texting. 62 years old love scotch whiskey. HAVE NEVER EVER DRIVEN A CAR AFTER DRINKING!!! Don't want to be killed by someone who does. I'm good with this device.

reply to post by headorheart


If people are not allowed to make decisions on there own, then where does that leave you? I guess I fail to see why anyone would ever suggest to take away any persons free will. hmmmmm wow.... Owe but it's to keep you safe, right...

Originally posted by QuestionTheGovernment
reply to post by headorheart

 

If people are not allowed to make decisions on there own, then where does that leave you? I guess I fail to see why anyone would ever suggest to take away any persons free will. hmmmmm wow.... Owe but it's to keep you safe, right...

Really what does free will have anything to do with this. You want to get drunk and drive around your acreage or rent a track fine knock you socks off. If exercising your free will means willfully endangering me or anyone else on a public road - screw you. I am addicted to high performance roadsters. I will occasionally indulge in a track day where I explore the envelope. I don't do that on public roads. By your standard I should be able to take my racers on the road and do as I damn well please.

reply to post by QuestionTheGovernment


I just don't believe you have the free will to drive drunk. I'm against large government, the Patriot Act, the TSA, you name it. However, if tapping your finger onto a screen can save 9,000 lives a year, I thought it may be useful.