Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?
June 23rd, 2008 Posted in DUI/DWIBy Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?
Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.
At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.
But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
No conviction necessary.
Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.
It doesn’t work for me.
I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (is anyone actually for drunk driving)? But I certainly do object to policies and regulations that impose cost and hassle and arguably, petit tyranny, on people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.
This isn’t about nannyism so much as it is about upending a few basic bedrock Western ideas about criminal justice, rights and responsibilities. Chief among these being that each of us gets treated as a specific individual.
If we do something wrong, we get specifically held accountable for it; the guy next door who had nothing to do with it isn’t dragged along for the ride. But that’s just what is happening here — indeed, has already happened — from those so-called “sobriety checkpoints” (which mostly “check” perfectly sober drivers) to the growing kudzu of “primary enforcement” seat belts laws that pester (and ticket) people for not wearing a seat belt, an action that may not be especially smart on an individual level but which has very little to do with the safety or well-being of others.
What’s even worse than these growing harassments, however, is how few object to them on principle.
Perhaps it’s because of the continuous dumbing-down of the populace, which knows all about Lindsay Lohan’s latest bender and who’s the latest finalist on American Idol but no longer understands that the ends don’t justify the means — and that down that road lies much worse than henpecky tickets and having to pay a few more bucks for your next new car as a result of some government mandate.
People used to get that; today, most don’t seem to. It’s the only way to explain the tsunami-like effectiveness of the word, “safety” — which doesn’t have to be specifically defined, quantified, subjected to cost-benefit analysis or throttled back by the once-superior claim of the individual’s “personal bubble of authority” — where he or she formerly reigned supreme, free of the suffocating and endless edicts of others who claim their evaluation of a perceived risk trumps your personal right to choose.
Just say “safety” (and for added emphasis, include “our children”) and no objection can be sustained.
This latest bit of ugliness burbling up from the stinkpot of government-corporate do-gooderism is merely a symptom of the underlying canker that is our ignorance — and acquiescence.
Earlier generations of Americans would have said, “Hold on a minute. I haven’t been convicted of driving drunk; hell, I’ve never even been suspected of it. Why in the world should I be required to buy an alcohol sniffer to check me out before I drive?” They would have insisted on tough punishment for the specific dimwit who got behind the wheel of a car impaired by booze. But they would have insisted, with equal toughness, that everyone else be left the hell alone to go about their business in peace.
Today, however, the siren song of saaaaaaaaafety is like a secular version of the prayer call in Muslim countries. When people hear it, they automatically fall down on their knees en masse and begin to worship.
God may be great — but “safety” is rapidly gaining ground on him.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
Other Related Articles
48 Responses to “Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?”
By tracker on Jul 24, 2008
Calla,
There is not enough information available on your comment to form an opinion. The law and its contest of cases has three pleas, guilty, not-guilty and no contest. You may not have won your case because you did not have a jury ( judgement by your peers) trial. Chances are that your attorney made a plea bargain during the initial hearing which is what most people go to to plead their cases.
DWI stops after an initial stop for any reason, in my opinion, is the financial gemstone of the legal system. Read my comments of 6/25/08. The DWI laws are so diversified in all fifty states the federal .08 and under legal limit means nothing to the average driver.
I have heard rumors that the fresh smell of straight ??? alcohol and water on ice will register over the limit. One drink and you are branded.
I have said it too many times. The chances of your getting any ticket will depend on what time of the month the local jurisdiction needs to balance their budget, and what you act like.
The police are doing their job, the local residents are paying their taxes and voting for their politicians to represent them and if you are from out-of -town straighten out your act, be courteous and there is the reasonable doubt in my mind you will get a citation.
By Calla on Jul 24, 2008
MADD has became a selfish and crazed organization. They need to be stopped. They have so much power and money now how can they be stopped? Even though I won a DWI case due to police stopping me for no other reason than to harass me, I still had to pay 1000$ to MADD. I also had attend several AA meetings which wasted my time and those that were actually there to help alcoholics.
By Advanced Safety Devices on Jul 11, 2008
If you’re in need of a breathalyzer before driving, visit any of these sites.
http://www.safety-devices.com
http://www.safetygears.net
http://www.usbreathalyzer.com
http://www.alcotesters.com
By M on Jul 3, 2008
I’m not completely down with this whole thing, but I would rather my car not start then a cop telling me that I’m screwed for the next year or two…
By C. on Jul 2, 2008
I don’t get the big uproar behind this. If you don’t drink and drive, you don’t have much to worry about. You pass the test, your car starts. Sure, there would still be ways to get around it, but I’d give it a test run for a few year before I say “RARARA THE GOVERNMENT IS SO UNFAIR AND WANTS TO CONTROL ALL OF MY ACTIONS RARARA LETS FIGHT THIS BUT NOT UNTIL I CRY TO ALL OF MY FRIENDS RARARA.” Yeah, a bunch of rebellious teenagers you are.
In the process of picking your battles, I don’t see this one as being too important. I’d rather do the breathing thing than the skin thing, though. And seriously, if you have a problem with it, why not just start walking? Considering gas prices, it might be a better idea.
What I was saying about testing it for a year: if accidents and deaths caused by drunk driving decrease by a large amount, I’d keep it around.
By Lawrence Taylor on Jun 27, 2008
See today’s post about your editorial on http://www.duiblog.com/2008/06/27/breathalyzers-soon-mandatory-for-all-cars/
By Mela on Jun 25, 2008
What MADD needs to remember is that there *are* appropriate times to drive a vehicle after failing a breathalizer. When fleeing from someone who is threatening bodily harm is the immediate example that comes to mind. Also keep in mind that breathalizers have an error rate. Wouldn’t it suck to be a person who constantly failed the breathalizer?
By tracker on Jun 25, 2008
I was talking to a friend who states that it is easier to just pay the ticket. In 21 years the cost of a misdeameanor ticket has gone from an inconvenience on a fixed budget to a major cost. The court cost was about $61.00 back then, but still stands today at about the same fee. Why are the fines continuously rising when the initial cost of the Bill of Rights has not changed. We the people of these fifty United States are separated by the fact that I live in Tennessee and if you live in California you could care less what I am doing in Tennessee until it affects you. Imagine only four states out of fifty have anti- quota laws on traffic violations.
By tracker on Jun 25, 2008
Dan,
I read your statement and have some questions. The first one is ” What do you mean by politically correct, One drink makes you a drunk driver”? I understand the BAC and the DWI differentiation.
The reason I am asking is I was downtown in Memphis one night attending college. On the way home I stopped at a roadside Barbeque with several other establishments which served alcohol. I purchased a sandwich and a coca cola. I was there for about a half hour and left.
When I was on the city street I was followed by the local police for about a quarter to half mile and stopped before I got on the interstate to go home. I was approached and told to exit my vehicle which I did, and was asked if I knew my tail lights were out. I was surprised by the question because I had recently bought this old Dodge pickup and replaced the tail light bulbs only days earlier.
I walked to the rear of my truck while explaining I did not because the bulbs were just replaced. I told him it must have been a fuse. The second question was ” Had I been drinking ? I told him , No! He then asked where I had been and I told him the University of Memphis.I had two night classes. He quickly called me a liar and locked me in his vehicle while he ransacked my truck looking for something.
He did not ask for my license or ID until after he trashed my belongings and returned to question my license. I questioned him from my cage that night and lost a lot of respect for LE in Memphis.
I respect the officers who do their jobs and continue to give reasonable respect to the accused, but I was not even accused of anything except lying to him and he wouldn’t even tell me what I lied about.
Finally after about five minutes of asking him why he called me a liar he responded and said he saw me leave a bar next to the Barbeque he had been watching. I told him the barbeque had a beer license and I only had a coca cola. I did not know coke was considered drinking ( Duh! )
I asked him to give me a breathalyzer and he shouted at me not to tell him what to do. I asked him if I was under arrest and he said I was free to go, but by then I was so agitated at being locked in a rolling cage I started to rattle the bars and said ” If I am then why are there no handles to open these doors ?
I was being facetious and angry at the same time and he responded, “for my protection.”
I knew why he pulled me over, but I asked him anyway. He told me ” your tail lights were out”. He wrote me the ticket and refused to pick up the articles he had removed from my trashed vehicle.
It was May of 1987 because I had just received my first set of uniforms from where I was employed and he took my clean laundry and laid it out in the grass. he was mad because a DWI or drug bust was better than a measly $19.00 tail light violation. The same violation now is about $95.00 unless you get a reasonable LEO.
By Hubcap on Jun 25, 2008
Dan wrote:
“And by the way, when reasonable, educated, productive adults begin to mistrust the police, we have a big problem.”
Taking this thread far afield of the topic, but you really laid it out there, buddy.
I will probably never forget the moment a few years ago when I was sitting on the couch mindlessly staring at the TV and the realization hit me like a brick upside the head: I have more to fear of the police than any criminal; I’m more afraid of my government more than any terrorist.
By Dan on Jun 25, 2008
Don’t get me started on the us v. them attitude of cops. I have a minor in crim J, but when I got out of college I decided I didn’t want to spend half my life associating with criminals, in the past few years I’ve also decided I wouldn’t have wanted to associate with most cops as well.
The politically correct “even one drink makes you a drunk driver” is neo-prohibitionist propaganda. Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws are a bunch of crap, it’s subjective, what qualifies some stranger with a badge to assert that I’m impared if I don’t have a BAC over the legal limit? That is why there are Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) laws, where there is an objective standard (yeah, I know this whole thread started with the assertion that testing someone against the standard might be severely flawed), against which one can be judged. Under the legal limit, not DWI, over the limit, DWI.
You can’t have it both ways, you can’t have a limit, but assert that you’re going to arrest and prosecute people that responsibly only consume an amount of alcohol that leaves them under the limit, and therefore they are legally entitled to drive.
Zero tolerance, neo-prohibitionists, and (with respect to those who are good ones) thugs with badges and attitudes can continue to self congratulate on their “safety” related attack on liberty, and therefore personal responsibility.
And by the way, when reasonable, educated, productive adults begin to mistrust the police, we have a big problem.
By Hubcap on Jun 25, 2008
James,
You are correct and I hope than others in your generation see it too.
Unfortunateley I have spent a majority of my life writing and calling my reps regarding various issues.(And I use the term “rep” very loosely because I’m not sure exactly what or who they represent–it sure as hell ain’t me.) Nothing has happened.
Hundreds of millions of people all around the world told Congress, the Senate and the President that invading Iraq was a bad idea. They did it anyway.
A majority of Americans think pot should be legal, but it’s not.
A majority of Americans don’t want to be spied on, but we are.
We need a complete purge of our corporate government and to replace it with a citizen government.