Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?
June 23rd, 2008 Posted in Breathalyzers, DUI/DWI, Eric PetersBy 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
Most of the people posting here have had no direct experience with a DUI. There is an ever increasing trend in this country of criminalizing any action that “they” don’t like. Drinking is one of those. Breathalizers are not about safety; they are about $$$. There is a whole industry making billions of dollars each year on DUI including governments. I am not being cynical. Anyone who has first hand knowledge of the process instantly realizes this fact. There is no desire to prevent repeat offenses just assess financial and freedom penalties.
Many states have taken due process out of the process of determining whether a person was driving under the influence. The DMV processes DUI as an administrative issue in many states whether or not the criminal courts find the defendant innocent. They revoke licenses and assess fines even if the driver is found innocent. This continual erosion of our rights granted by our forefathers is what is destroying our country. Many posters to this forum seem okay with that fact. The phrase “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about” is very dangerous. It has led to many fascist regimes.
The truth is that many innocent people are denied due process because of these draconian DUI laws. Breathalyzers/interlock devices are prone to errors that can deny you the chance to pick up your kids when it is getting dark or prevent you from going to work or receiving emergency medical attention. These situations may seem extreme, but they are actual events that have happened. You can’t have the analyzer too hot or cold or it will not work. Watch out for medicine, mouthwash or many other substances. What happens if your battery is dead and you need a jump? It is considered a bypass and the car could be locked-out. These devices are far from perfect which is an assumption many posters are making.
No person with any common sense advocates people driving under the influence. I certainly don’t, but there needs to be some personal responsibility here. We do not need the state telling us how to live our lives and what to do. These are not the principles that this country was founded. I have seen many hard working people that are not drunks get caught up into the system where it has significantly affected their lives. These people did not get into accidents or kill people. They were just unlucky enough to be over some predetermined limit or demand to their right to due process.
The problem is not the occasional drinker but the impaired driver. This may be due to alcohol, drugs, cell phones, computers, lack of sleep, food, makeup, iPods, children, or even bad drivers. I see more dangerous situations that are because of non-drug/alcohol when I am driving. Alcohol makes an easy target. Adding interlock devices will not have any major impact on reducing accidents it will just create more criminals and $$$ for the government.
I am not cynical. I am just a realist after seeing and helping people in this situation. These devices assume that we are incapable of making our own decisions. Granted that some people do not make wise choices, but do we really want this country to evolve to one that there are a few people in DC that know best for us and will decide how we should live and what we should do? We are heading that way. Remember the USSR and the Politburo?
This is about a breathalyzer in the car, right? Not about guns and all …. Anyway. More “normal” people get behind the wheel of a car after 2 – 3 drinks, than not. Not a felon, not somebody that’s an alcoholic, not someone that is driving drunk readily, just a normal person going for a drink after work, before he/she goes home. That analyser will just let you wait an hour or 6 before you can turn the key. If you’re not drunk or over the legal limit, off you go. Where does it impact you as a person? It’s in the privacy of your own car for crying out loud. If you think it will impact you as a person, then sorry, you’re a very sad person to be offended with little things in life like this that can save you or someone elses life. I don’t think it’s just another way the government want to reign control, I think it is beneficial for everyone. Most people think after 2 drinks they’re fine to drive. Even if you think you can “handle your alcohol”. I think this just saves the trouble of people thinking they are okay to drive to those that really are okay. (Oh, and by the way – James Young – the people in the fast cars are usually the ones that, when they crash, (and they do) they always take a few innocent people along with them, crashing into them, I mean.
I agree that it is unfair to assume that everyone is stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. However, while you and I are relatively intelligent people, many others aren’t. And I think that it’s entirely worth it!
I don’t consider it giving up a freedom. If you don’t drink and drive, you have nothing to worry about! And, like you said, the checkpoints have a habit of finding only the sober people. Do you have any idea how many slammed drivers manage to fly under the radar? I have family who likes more than their fair share of alcohol and still decide to drive at the end of the day. They’ve just never been caught!
I don’t care about having to breath into a little tube to prove that I haven’t been drinking. Particularly if I haven’t been drinking! I just feel better on the road knowing that the poeple who aren’t quite as smart as you or I have a little extra help when trying to tell right from wrong!
“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”
I completely disagree with you it’s not about society being “dumbed-down” like you say most people agree because they fear for their lives when they go out on the road knowing they could get killed by someone who’s drunk at any given point in time, and contrary to what you may think not all drunk drivers are “evil people who don’t care about anything and are out on suicidal missions” they might just be any person who had a bad day and this technology will prevent them from having an even worse day or life.
sure we’ll have to pay a bit more for the new technology but hell how many lives do you think this will save?
You need to stop and think “What if tomorrow someone in my family dies in a car accident caused by someone who was drunk?” Maybe they wouldn’t have died if this new technology had stopped that drunk from turning on the engine of the moving weapon they just got in.
doing this would be assanine. if someone is on the border of .08 they coudln’t drive home even if they were fine. i think the problem is more dumb drivers. harder road tests would make better drivers. i consider myself to be a responsible driver, but i took 5 lessons then passed my roadtest. that scares me who could be driving next to me. there are people much more competent driving with a bac of .08 than some sober drivers will ever be!
Mr. Peters,
I am looking into the detection system as being a part of an intervention for a client. If it is possible for him to have this product installed in the family car, it would be the difference between the children living at home or in foster care. If available could you send information on how to obtain this product. Or send what ever information you have. I would greatly appreciate it.
Patricia Currington, MSSA, LSW
Child Welfare Caseworker
Trumbull Co. Children Services Board
“I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. . .”
Did you mean that you – also – dislike “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” or that you dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving do.
It’s cute that you quote Ben Franklin on “Essential Liberty”, but he’s not around to correct your misunderstanding of what he meant. The key word is “Essential,” as in “Fundamental,” as in, basic to the idea of what it means to live as a free person. A reading of the Bill of Rights gives an idea of the kinds of liberty the Founders held to be “essential” – such things as freedom of speech and religion, protection against the government invading your house and seizing your papers and private property for no good reason; the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial; the right to not be tortured or killed without cause.
I don’t think Franklin would have considered “essential” the right to get drunk and turn a 2,000 pound motor vehicle into a deadly missile. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’d think otherwise. Even in the 18th century you could be prosecuted for harboring a mad dog. More to the point of what ignition interlocks do, the constable could lawfully shoot the dog.
Yes, before ignition interlocks are made standard equipment the technology needs to be improved so as reduce false positives and accidental vehicle disablements to a tiny minimum. I’ve no doubt that will come if the device is mandated for all cars. The same arguments were made against mandatory air bags – they’d deploy accidentally – but such incidents are rare, and the bags have saved far more lives than they’ve cost.
You don’t like being breathalyzed without “probable cause,” even if the sensor becomes no more intrusive than the turn-signal lever? You libertarian types have such delicate sensibilities. I bet you resent taking your shoes off at the airport, too. Should we give al-Qaeda another crack at hijacking airplanes? Most people are resigned to airport security checks, and those are far more intrusive than ignition interlocks will be when the technology is perfected. And this is odd, considering that drunk drivers kill five times as many people every year as the 9/11 hijackers killed in 2001.
In my 58 years I have lost three friends or relatives to drunk drivers, and known several more who’ve lost people who were dear to them. I’ll gladly give up a little nonessential liberty to stop that carnage.
Oh – and your fear of being convicted because the sensor malfunctions? Easily handled by proper laws. No one should be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a machine. But the point of the interlocks is not to prosecute drunk drivers, it’s to prevent them from driving in the first place.
I always find it a wonder that libertarians so fear government intrusion even though the demonstrable trend in American history is that our liberties have generally expanded. State governments used to censor books; they don’t anymore. We had sodomy laws and criminal adultery laws. There were laws against black people voting, or having certain jobs, or living in white neighborhoods or marrying white people. Contraceptives and abortions were illegal. Casinos? Only in Nevada. Come to think of it, the government (with popular support) outlawed alcohol entirely for 15 years (1918-1933). By any reasonable standard we Americans enjoy a greater degree of “Essential Liberty” than at any time in history. Yet you libertarians insist on seeing every limitation on the right to do whatever the hell you want – public safety be damned! – as a step down the slippery slope on the road to serfdom. I see no evidence of a slippery slope, and ignition interlocks are a long way from serfdom. I can’t wait to see them mandated on all motor vehicles.
Randy writes: {James Young your idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable is different. You believe that you should not do anything about DUI drivers until they create their first accident or are unable to stay on the road. Most here believe that the limit for DUI should be .10 or higher as a start but only a minor violation with something a lot higher where they are too drunk to walk before any true ramifications come into affect.}
There you go again, attributing ideas to me that are not mine, that I have not espoused and that in no way reflect what I believe or why I believe it. You either misstate it deliberately, which makes you dishonest, or you just don’t understand it in the first place, which makes you ignorant. Neither choice is palatable.
I do not believe that we should do nothing about DUI drivers until they have their first crash. I do believe that we should concentrate our resources on those drivers that we know are problems because they have a history of alcohol abuse and are more likely to cause trouble for other drivers. We know – although you probably don’t know or want to ignore it – that the drivers most often involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes have BAC well over the legal limit, often double, sometimes triple the legal limit. Therefore, if we really want to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, we need to concentrate on these drivers – the bull’s-eye that we already know by name and address – rather than enlarging our target. We need to do this because it is more effective. You, however, do not understand this.
We also know that alcoholism is largely genetic in nature and that alcoholics – those most likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes – do not respond to punishment. They do not alter their behavior because they fear punishment so punishment is not an effective deterrent for them and is grossly inefficient for us as a society. Why you want to put out cops to handle a medical issue is truly puzzling.
{You also say there should be no speed limits and if there are they should be 45 mph to 55 mph in residential areas designed for 30 or 35.}
I have said this nowhere. I do support removing speed limits on rural and Interstate-grade roadways, allowing the police to concentrate on behavior that interferes with flow or creates frustration. You keep trying to bring in “residential” streets but there is so little traffic on them as to be unworthy of our attention, and your effort is but to obfuscate. What you might mean is arterial streets, perhaps collector streets. In that case, the limits should be set at the well established 85th percentile, which is a scientific principle, not just something to confuse cops and piss you off.
{ You believe that high speeds never cause any accidents or make any worse and I totally disagree.}
Disagree all you want. There has to be another factor because speed by itself does not cause anything.
{ If someone gets in an acccident traveling 90 mph or more, you are looking for someone else that caused accident because anyone according to you that drives fast is one of the best drivers on the road.}
That statement makes no sense. It is not my assertion at all. What you seem to want to ignore all the time is that we have spent billions on improving our roads and our cars just so we can travel faster because higher speeds have a significant economic value. Yet, you want to excuse limits from 30 and 40 years ago.
{Since you are getting up in age you will not be able to drive yourself because you are against anyone that is not 100% with reflexes and abilities like a 20 year old.}
Again, you attribute thoughts to me that are not mine. I fully recognize that the average experienced driver in America can and does handle freeway speeds with little drama. It does not take the reflexes of a Senna to handle freeway speeds because 100 million of us do it every day. I should be able to drive myself for quite a few more years.
{James Young I forgot to bring up your ideas about freedom. You are for freedom to do anything that you feel that you want to do or get by with but freedom for anything else that is not on your agenda you say that you are not for. You want to have the freedom to do anything dangerous that you want to do but you say you are not for just as dangerous of things that you do not do.}
That makes no sense at all. However, note that I am not a thrill seeker, if that is what you have in mind.
More to the point, this argument is more about control than freedom. Citizens should be in control of their government but it is slipping away from them because people like you want to be the macro controllers of societal behavior through rules, enforcement and punishment. People want to be the micro controllers of their own lives, making choices without the intrusive enforcement forces that deem that they know better than the people what the people want and need.
Freedom requires responsibility but responsibility is a two-way street. Responsibility is when a driver decides to call it a day because he is fatigued but it is also the implementation of rational rules and reasonable enforcement intelligently designed to accomplish mutually acceptable goals. Right now, the economic forces of the insurance industry and their minions drive public policy and we are all worse off because of it. That is gross irresponsibility.
James Young I forgot to bring up your ideas about freedom. You are for freedom to do anything that you feel that you want to do or get by with but freedom for anything else that is not on your agenda you say that you are not for. You want to have the freedom to do anything dangerous that you want to do but you say you are not for just as dangerous of things that you do not do.
James Young your idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable is different. You believe that you should not do anything about DUI drivers until they create their first accident or are unable to stay on the road. Most here believe that the limit for DUI should be .10 or higher as a start but only a minor violation with something a lot higher where they are too drunk to walk before any true ramifications come into affect.
You also say there should be no speed limits and if there are they should be 45 mph to 55 mph in residential areas designed for 30 or 35. You believe that high speeds never cause any accidents or make any worse and I totally disagree. If someone gets in an acccident traveling 90 mph or more, you are looking for someone else that caused accident because anyone according to you that drives fast is one of the best drivers on the road.
Since you are getting up in age you will not be able to drive yourself because you are against anyone that is not 100% with reflexes and abilities like a 20 year old.
Randy writes: {James Young why don’t you give kids loaded guns and let everyone out of jail and allow child abusers to do whatever they like because freedom should reign as you say. I do not believe in absolute freedoms like you do but so be it.
The things above are no worse than allowing drunks to have freedom to drive if they like and reckless drivers to do whatever they like. If they kill someone it is all in the name of freedom.}
We talk about rationally derived limits and you excuse their denial with school zones. We talk about using only valid evidence at trials and you claim that we support drunk driving. We talk about reasonable policy that works and you claim that we are giving kids loaded guns. We want reason in law and you claim we want to let child molesters out of jail.
Bullshit.
You continue to misconstrue, misstate and outright lie about what we say, how we say it and what we mean. Your whole argument boils down to the sad fact that you cannot stand the idea of people making their own choices in driving or in governance and it has been exacerbated by the fact that you’re probably a paid shill for the anti-destination league
Jeff you do not watch the news do you? You have a Giant problem.
Randy – are you telling me all those shootings in New York City are illegal?
Jeff they do not allow hunting in New York. Not even if it is shooting yourself.
Many states allow kids to start hunting at age 12.
James Young why don’t you give kids loaded guns and let everyone out of jail and allow child abusers to do whatever they like because freedom should reign as you say. I do not believe in absolute freedoms like you do but so be it.
The things above are no worse than allowing drunks to have freedom to drive if they like and reckless drivers to do whatever they like. If they kill someone it is all in the name of freedom.
Randy writes: { James Young sorry but you can move if you do not like who you are electing. It is your choice. Thank God that we have some people in our government that do something to protect us from guys like you. We do not need more people driving as fast as they like under all conditions, driving drunk, running stop signs and the dozens of other things you are promoting.}
What a sad response. America, love it or leave it, catch phrase of the idiot Silent Majority. Even sadder is that it is sheep like you who are making this a more authoritarian place every day. I promote none of those things that you attribute to me but ask only reason and sanity in law and public policy. You dishonestly assign all kinds of nefarious things to me in a feeble attempt to shore up your failed philosophy – whatever it is. What is truly sad is that you have no idea how dishonest that is.
Freedom is dangerous. You can either accept the risks that come with it or eventually lose it all step-by-step. Each step will be justified by its proponents as a minor inconvenience that will help make us all “safer.” Personally, I’d rather have a slightly more dangerous world that respects freedom more.
James Young sorry but you can move if you do not like who you are electing. It is your choice. Thank God that we have some people in our government that do something to protect us from guys like you. We do not need more people driving as fast as they like under all conditions, driving drunk, running stop signs and the dozens of other things you are promoting.
Randy writes: { James Young it is not my freedoms that are being trampled. If you break the law by most states and national definitions you lose some or all of your freedoms.}
Those are your freedoms. What happens when they define something you do routinely as a crime? What happens when that something is no longer a choice but is genetic in nature? Do you really believe that addiction, mental illness, homosexuality or race should be the basis for a crime? We have witnessed just such a group in the Third Reich and they are not very far from your way of thinking.
James Young it is not my freedoms that are being trampled. If you break the law by most states and national definitions you lose some or all of your freedoms.
Randy writes: {James Young they can put you in jail at least temperarily. I guess that has nothing to do with driving.}
You are correct; it doesn’t have anything to do with driving. There is quantum difference between being arrested by a cop and having him revoke your license.
{There is not much difference from what I hear about revoking it on the spot or taking your to court and removing it that way. It sounds to me like it is a pretty much open and shut case in many states if you do not allow to be tested.}
There is a world of difference in that going to court requires that the state proceed under a stringent set of rules and only after all requirements have been met can the state revoke a license. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer states are adhering to those rules and have set up shams to circumvent them. Not that you would notice, but those are your freedoms being trampled.
James Young they can put you in jail at least temperarily. I guess that has nothing to do with driving. Maybe you can drive your car around the jail cell. There is not much difference from what I hear about revoking it on the spot or taking your to court and removing it that way. It sounds to me like it is a pretty much open and shut case in many states if you do not allow to be tested.
I guess I should defer to you though since I am sure you have been stopped for a lot of DUIs all over the country.
Randy writes: { James Young you are wrong. An officer can revoke your license on the spot at least temperarily and up to I believe 6 months or so in certain cases of DUI for refusal of being tested.}
Randy, that’s stupid, even for you. There is not a cop in America who can legal revoke a driver’s license on the spot.
K real smart duh. It sounds like a great idea to me if it worked as they would like it to. So you do not want to be treated like a criminal. The idea is that it only allows people to drive that are not drinkers and has sensors that are not even noticed by a driver that they are there. To you it would mean nothing except you would not have to be as worried about being on the same roads that have drunk drivers on them. Your idea is kind of like not wanting airbags in your car. You are treated like a bad driver if you have airbags right? I do not know if they will ever have a system that will work but if it is cheap enough and works I am all for it. Of course you would rather have a drunk driver run into you though I guess than to feel like you are being treated like a criminal. You would rather have 10s of thousands of deaths rather than you thinking that someone out there somewhere is treating you like a criminal. I guess you would rather have a 3,000 lb vehicle up your rear end than to have a misguided idea that someone is treating you like a criminal.
So even if I DO NOT DRINK, I will be treated like a criminal and be constantly tested as one?
Offensive. Anyone who thinks it’s a great idea that EVERY CAR has one of these needs to hold out their hands for the chains right now. Please, bend over some more and beg to be treated like the sheep you so sadly are. :(
AS A NON-DRINKER WHO HAS NEVER GOTTEN A DUI, I am offended that I would have to do this.
James Young you are wrong. An officer can revoke your license on the spot at least temperarily and up to I believe 6 months or so in certain cases of DUI for refusal of being tested. Illinois now has a manditory In-Car Breathalyzer in vehicles after the first DUI conviction starting January 1st. This has been shown to reduce DUI accidents by more than 15 percent in other states.
Eric Post writes: {Driving is not a right, it’s a privledge. Therefore you don’t have a right to complain nor is it unfair. Don’t like it? Walk.}
Sigh . . . How many times do I have to post Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 in which the court denominated holding a driver’s license and therefore driving as an entitlement rather than pure right or pure privilege? Once competence is demonstrated, a license cannot be revoked at will but only after due process, just the same as a right.
Dan I hope you do not give up your liberty of living do to your lack of caring about any type of safety. You do not want to become one of the 40 plus thousand that give up their life so that lack of safety can continue.
Hey Eric Post, the national walker’s association website is at http://www.youreatool.com. Thanks for volunteering to be the comment section parent for today, we all forgot driving was a PRIVLEDGE, thank you for your insightful and timely comment.
I seriously hope all of you who agree to give up your personal liberty for a perceived safety get exactly what’s coming to you, especially you Eric.
Driving is not a right, it’s a privledge. Therefore you don’t have a right to complain nor is it unfair. Don’t like it? Walk.
Paul before such devices would go into production on all cars there would have to be extensive testing of the devices. If the failure rate or effort in activating such devices for the normal public is too much then they would not go into production. It would not be allowed. Car companies would not want it because of multiple recalls if there were problems with them. That being said, if there is some simple device to keep people from driving drunk then 10,000 to 20,000 lives would be saved each year.
Some issues around required interlock devices that are not at the top of the public discussion are what causes false positives and the resulting cost and consequences. Perfume or cologne can cause a false reading. Mints, food (anything with yeast eaten 20 minutes prior to blowing), gasoline that may have touch your hands after pumping gas and de-icing solution to name a few. What happens is that you blow and the machine records .15 because you ate some bread. If you do not re-blow with a clean reading you have .15 recorded on the microchip. You will have to return the device within a week or your vehicle won’t work and then have to explain to some authority that you actually were not drinking Friday night you were having dinner with a friend. It is your word against the machine. Who will they believe?
Malfunctions are another issue – this one will cost lives (I realize the devices also save lives). These devices malfunction. If it malfunctions and someone needs to leave a dangerous area they cannot do so in their car. You must have the unit serviced before you can use the vehicle again. When you get the unit serviced expect to pay $50-$100. The interlock companies are there to make money as any business.
Many false positives are caused by de-icer windshield fluid – great niche market here if these devices become mandatory in every vehicle especially the colder states.
Why has it become illegal in some states to talk on the phone without a hands free device? How is the interlock device any different? The device beeps and regardless of where you are you need to blow. You get several attempts but there are traffic situations where you must make the call – compromise safety, pick up the device (some get a little lightheaded) blow and monitor the reading or attend to driving. How well will this work with the elderly? Someone with impaired breathing? Eventually stats will come out on the number of injuries and deaths caused by these devices. I believe if they are only used for repeat DUI offenders the benefits outweigh the cost. I also believe this is driven by big money. I think the interlock devices should stay for repeat offenders and the money should go to the victims of drunk drivers. In our area the victims get nothing from the 10k + that DWIs typically pay out. Everyone else does quite well: attorneys, treatment facilites, courts, interlock business.
Dan the only thing that I think about your opinion is that anyone that thinks they should have the freedom to drive drunk should not be on the road at all.
I was just reading a book that discusses how men tend to see issues like this as constraining their individual freedom, “I’m not going to let a car JUDGE me every time I get in to drive” verses a woman’s response which might be more focused on the community “It is worth the inconvienece if it makes the streets safer”.
Me, I have a typical male freedom response to this idea, but I just won’t buy a car that has this feature in the steering wheel.
Oh, and every man that responded that this is a good idea is a wimp.
Ok Melanie I can see your point. You do make alot of sense but some people don’t want to deal with always blowing on a device every time they get into their vehicle. I know I would not like it. I don’t know if what I heard is true but their is a device being tested that can tell if a person has been drinking by scanning the persons eyes. This is so much more conveniet and more better than blowing into the regular conventional device that is aready out. I wouldn’t mind if my vehicle had the eye tester thing in it but I would mind if it was the one that requires an individual to blow into it. Also the Breathalyzer has its flaws because someone else who is not drunk can blow into it and start the vehicle while the drunk person can drive his or her vehicle while putting others at risk.
Emotions should not be mixed with this as it could save lives. Speculation as to that people drink and drive is very much real and if they have done it once there is a chance they may do it again besides this is a great article for drivers Ed.
I really don’t understand why people are so negative about this issue. So what if people havent convicted a drunk driving offense, but they might..anyone could. I think it should definatley be for those who have been convicted before but also for people who haven’t..to prevent them from becoming a felon themselves. And those people who dissagree with this..what if someone you know was killed by a drunk driver, when they were completley sober? If you don’t wish that drunk driver hadn’t got in the car and killed your loved one, theres something wrong with you. I think this is a great solution to limit thousands of deaths a year, including those who are innocently driving.
Why can’t the safety advocates, auto manufactures, car enthusiast, governments, citizens, and the environmentalist all work together as a whole and respect each other instead of being divided from one anotheir.
Responsible good sane drivers who do not ever drink and drive should not be force to have their vehicle fitted with an in-car breathalyzer if they really do not want it. The drivers who do drink and drive should have in-car breathalyzers fitted in their vehicle since they put others at risk. Laws should protect innocent people without taking away freedom. Freedom cannot keep being taking away in the name of safety because if that continues then we will hardly have any freedom left and then what are we going to do. I am not saying safety is not important because it is and it should be put into the equation without taking freedom away. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
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.
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.
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
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…
[...] first story comes to us from the National Motorists Association. There has been talk about making anyone charged with a DUI install (at their own expense) a [...]
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.
[...] Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Cominghttp://www.motorists…in-car-breathalyzers-coming/ [...]
[...] people and Americans especially like being slaves just as long as they are told that they are free. First off, we have Mothers Against Drunk Driving an organization with a long track record of endorsi… under the guise of drunk driving prevention. Microsoft, Google, EBay among others have helped found [...]
See today’s post about your editorial on http://www.duiblog.com/2008/06/27/breathalyzers-soon-mandatory-for-all-cars/
[...] Posted by michaelr Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming? Well I told a few people that this was coming, of course I was laughed at, after all it does sound [...]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...] http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/ [...]
[...] wheel and you’ll actually be required to pay for that privilege if you want to drive… Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?–National Motorists [...]
[...] wheel and you’ll actually be required to pay for that privilege if you want to drive… Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?–National Motorists [...]
[...] wheel and you’ll actually be required to pay for that privilege if you want to drive… Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?–National Motorists [...]
People just arent getting it!!!!! It has nothing to do with safty or Drunk driving. Its all about control. I really do hope that theres a REAL revolution and Soon. This is getting out of hand. Real ID act will track you every move. It will have RFID chips in it and be required to get a job, open bank account, drive, board an airplane etc. That is unless you stop it. Contact your congress or senate reps. Contact your state reps as well. Thats where all the real power is in the states. You can bet all these tracking systems will be intergrated. Oh yeah Im 25 so from the younger generation who wasnt taught the constitution or anything else really of value except math and english. Ron Paul has opened my eyes and millions of others both young and old. If you want others to know what its like to be free talk about it. Tell US about how it could be and how to change things back. Ate this Point I believe I was lied to when I was told I live in a free country! Whats the next best country to move too? You know where the government leaves you alone and lets you do what you please so long your not harming others etc. These laws and mandates are getting way overboard. Cant even install a shed on my own property unless I get permission from gov. That is if I want one that can hold a bike and lawn mower oh and it cant be within 10 ft from the edge of the yard etc. Such BS nowadays.
Oh yeah and the glove wont work since it will have to detect something or it will be like theres nothing touching it. The thin sergens gloves probly wont hold back the alcohol either. just a thought.
I dont drink and drive but it doesnt take a rocket surgeon to put on a pair of $2 gloves and bypass the “passive alcohol sensors”. Remember; if the glove dont fit, you’re in a heap of sh!t.
To Mike Greenberg,
As a parent, there is a difference between policing your kids into doing the right thing and teaching them. I don’t police my kids as much as I could. This is not without risk. I am forced to trust their judgement to a certain degree and hope that I gauge that degree correctly. The reason I do this is that I am raising them to be adults and think for themselves. I could put devices on my cars when they start driving that would monitor and limit what they could do. That is not the same thing as teaching responsibility in my opinion. I also plan to introduce my kids to alcohol in a setting that I control where they can learn about consuming safely.
Robert Firth makes a good point. I see lots of lawsuits. Just spray some womans hand with alcohol and they cannot start their car. Good one.
I wonder, how many women will be raped and murdered by random stalkers because they couldn’t start their automobiles fast enough to escape? Let’s hope they are all members of MADD.
Just once, I’d like to see somebody who knows a bit more than zero about the Constitution state for the record that the federal fascist government has ZERO AUTHORITY to legislate with respect to what people put into their bodies. Laws are supposed to deal with peoples’ actions, NOT the content of their body fluids.
The Nazis were the first people in history to implement drunk driving laws. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Hitler was a non-smoking, teetotaling vegetarian fanatic. And by the way, the Nazis pointed to forced sterilization laws in the U.S. as models for their laws legalizing the sterilization of Jews. In case you’re wondering, by the time Uncle Adolf and the Nazis came to power, there were 17 states in this “free” country that had passed such laws, Indiana being the first in 1907.
And for anybody who wants to whine to me that a relative was killed by a drunk driver, there are laws that were in place decades before this insidious shit to take care of this. Leave the alcohol out of it. And don’t give me any shit that somebody who MAY be LEGALLY drunk (and like George Carlin said, if they’re LEGALLY drunk, then what’s the fucking problem?) should have their life ruined because they MIGHT do something. Probabilities aren’t for legislators writing laws to deal with. They’re for insurance companies and casinos to deal with, on a private basis.
Question: what kind of a police state is this, when the government has to administer a test to you to determine whether you’re a “criminal?”
Last question: how does anybody know whether these “breathalyzers” even read accurately? You breathe into it, a cop says you’re a criminal, and off you go, and your life is ruined? The Founders shouldn’t have bothered.
I wrote a blog yesterday saying almost the EXACT same thing before I had read this just now. I would invite everyone to read it and if you’re a myspace member you can comment on it.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=51612463&blogID=408568232
http://www.myspace.com/chadpolenz
I am confused why you would be so upset about something like this? Don’t you think it is a little late to be screeching about violations of your liberty when you traded it all for bowl of cold, weak soup long ago?
When you all consented to mandatory insurance as a condition of exercise of your essential liberty, you psssssed it all away.
Insurance is exactly that – a system of ‘guilty EVEN IF proven innocent’, the MOST innocent (those who NEVER do any harm) pay the most, the MOST guilty (careless, irresponsible) escape any real consequences for their actions. And the innocent – well, they go to jail and have theri lives destroyed for not participating in this gross injustice.
The liberty-eating monster you all trust in is about to taserr you all to death in front of your kids, and up your rates…
[...] Eric Peters National Motorists Association June 23, 2008 [...]
Your founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. Why do you americans-who claim to be free and brave and a democracy-allow this to go on? You are so submissive.
Welcome to the ussa. I wonder if these “advocates” pushing this totalitarian, orwellian “technology” would have the same devices installed on their cars?
Why I bet not!
Guilty til proven innocent. That’s what the law is all about.
Why do they think that these interlocks will have any greater acceptance by the public than the seat belt interlock regulation of 1974? Even a small percentage of false alarms where a car doesn’t start inappropriately will cause a consumer uproar.
You know what is involved in more accidents than alcohol?
Drowsiness.
I guess that means I will either walk everywhere or use public transport.
Oh wait – I do that already.
Will these devices be in the taxis, the buses, the trains and the planes?
I like the idea. There are 10-20 times more people driving drunk than the ones getting caught, plus 90% of the people killed are by drunks that have never gotten a DUII ticket. Saving 100,000 + people from serious injuries and society’s costs makes this very sensible. It is only a safety device, like seat belts, air bags, and KEYS!
[...] Until Proved Innocent Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming? Well I told a few people that this was coming, of course I was laughed at, after all it does sound [...]
Not that I would ever buy a new car again (who can afford the 50% depreciation when you drive it off the lot?), but this certainly infringes on the very meaning of the words ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
Just more idiot legislation from our band of idiot lawmakers with too much time on their hands, too much lobby money in their pockets and too much whispering in their ear by the department of homeland ’security’.
This idea is communism marketed as public safety. Anyone who falls for it deserves to live in North Korea or Red China, not the United States.
Yet no one is concerned that unlicensed drivers get behind the wheel all the time, or that the driver of a vehicle isn’t always the vehicle’s owner, or even an authorized driver of the vehicle. And what about cellphone users? Supposedly they’re just as bad as drunks. Where’s the cellphone detection devices? So, target the drunks, but let the thieves, unlicensed drivers and cellphone users ride free? Believe me, I’m not a supporter of any kind of nannying devices, but seriously, if you’re going to target problem drivers, why target just one kind?
Just from the practicality standpoint, how much more insane can you get than to introduce a point of failure into your design that intentionally makes the product useless if it malfunctions?
Excuse me, did they say passive sampling of the skin when you touch things? I wonder what would happen, then, to all the paranoid moms who constantly rub alcohol-based hand sanitizer all over themselves? Will the same soccer moms supporting MADD now be thwarted in their own efforts to drive by their own mad schemes?
hey mike, most ‘underage drivers’, and i assume you mean under the legal age to drink alcohol which is 21, are legal adults (18,19,20). So it should be, in your mind, absurd that they should ever have this enforced on them.
[...] Will we soon have ignition interlock devices on every vehicle? [...]
Can you please provide specific names so we can write letters to oppose this.
Eg which senator sponsored the 10M funding.
thank
Give me liberty or give me death. Our founding fathers would be planning another revolution. The weed police just grabbed me this week because I cultivate a black berry patch to pick for fruit and also make a little wine.
Statements like those of Mike Greenberg are indicative of the indoctrination that our schools have instilled in our youth. Thomas Payne and John Henry are only names in history books and our Constitution is a terribly old guidepost that should be modernized to keep up with the times.
The TSA, road blocks, tracking of our financial transactions, CCTV cameras, and many other techniques are being “sold” to us in the name of “safety” while our youth just blindly accept it.
What will it take for the populous or just a significant number of citizens wake up and realize what is happening to our freedoms? They way that we are controlled in American society would make Stalin proud.
Mike Greenberg:
Did you read the column? The whole point is that groups should NOT be pre-judged and lumped together. That measures like this are wrong in and of themselves, not wrong for only a group of people.
If you want to argue that teens binge drink, that’s a different issue (albeit with an equally stupid cause). But it’s still not a reason to presuppose that they have been drinking when they get into a car.
This kind of ’solution’ to a ‘problem’ that’s primarily driven by Mothers Against Drinking is inherently wrong, and that they use the amorphous spectre of ‘Safety’ to shout down any opposition is the issue.
I actually think this would be a good idea to impose on underage drivers (I’m 19) because the propensity for teens to drink massive quantities… I know tons of kids who are extremely level headed but drink so much that their functioning on autopilot.
For adults, this idea is absurd though. Only if you’re a serial drunk driver should this be considered.