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
80 Responses to “Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?”
By James Young on Jan 4, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By James Young on Jan 3, 2009
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
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
Jeff you do not watch the news do you? You have a Giant problem.
By Jeff on Jan 3, 2009
Randy - are you telling me all those shootings in New York City are illegal?
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
Jeff they do not allow hunting in New York. Not even if it is shooting yourself.
By Jeff on Jan 3, 2009
Many states allow kids to start hunting at age 12.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By James Young on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By James Young on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By James Young on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By James Young on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By K on Jan 3, 2009
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.
By Randy on Dec 30, 2008
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.
By James Young on Dec 27, 2008
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.
By Randy on Dec 26, 2008
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.
By Dan on Dec 26, 2008
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.
By Eric Post on Dec 25, 2008
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.
By Randy on Dec 16, 2008
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.
By Paul on Dec 15, 2008
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.