Alcohol Nanny Breathalyzers

American Spectator ^ | 07 aug 07 | Eric Peters

[rellimpank]

"Pre-emptive war" got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver's system -- and shut the car down if it does.

Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea -- and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.

Sounds OK in principle -- sort of like the idea of liberating Iraq. The devil's in the details, though.

[Bryan]

You don't want to be free do you?

Of course I want to be free. I want to be free to drive home late on a Saturday night, and not worry that a drunk driver is going to weave across the center line and hit me head on.

As long as the results are not provided to law enforcement, there is no constitutional issue here. The devices should neither record nor transmit the results. If they do, I'll be on your side fighting like hell.

[driftdiver]

“I guess Ted Kennedy won’t have to get one installed.”

I’m guessing the political elites will be exempt from this law like so many other laws.

[fr_freak]

I responded. You must have missed this response: if the interlock system had a transmitter, and was programmed to transmit the BAC along with a copy of the driver's license and a description of the car to every cop patrolling the area, you might have a point.

But it doesn't do that. It just prevents you from driving drunk.

That last sentence is the key to just how wrong you are, and why your attitude is extremely dangerous to a free society. This device does not prevent you from driving drunk. It merely prevents you from driving if it detects some level of alcohol. Whether or not the level of alcohol that it detects is enough for you, as an individual, to be impaired is an entirely different question.

What this device does is take the judgment out of the hands of the individual and places it with whichever authority enforces this device. And, in order for you to justify this treatment of adults as children, and controlling them like children, you have to resort to the hyperbole that anyone who has had a drink is drunk, and that he will then go and kill people. The truth is that 99% of the people who would be imposed upon by this device, not just in cost but in non-functionality of their vehicle, will be those who are not in the least bit impaired. So, you are advocating a strict measure of control over 100% of the people in order to stop 1% from being potential hazards.

You are a danger to freedom, not a defender of it.

[elkfersupper]

So we would have to prove we aren’t drunk before we can start the car?

Or use mouthwash, hand sanitizers, colognes, smoke, have a zinc deficiency, are diabetic, are saturated with paints, stains, fuels, adhesives, sealants, lubricants, etc........

[Navy Patriot]

As I understand it, these interlock systems will not record the results or transmit them to law enforcement.

So, of course, it would not be illegal to disable or deceive the system, and police would be forbidden from searching for disabled systems.

You wouldn't have to prove your innocence to a mechanical extension of the local cop. And he won't stop you for just your seat belt, too, after all, he promised.

[elkfersupper]

Alcohol is a factor in 40% of our highway fatalities.

Where on this planet did you get that idea?

Don't tell us MADD or NHTSA.

[elkfersupper]

As long as it doesn’t prevent people who are under the legal limit from operating a motor vehicle, I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

The "legal" limit is now in practically 0%.

Now what?

[traviskicks]

"..require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol.."




Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[skeptoid]

If the special report on DUI cops in the Seattle area is true, these devices should be installed on the cops' personal vehicles. .

Michael Bowe, a Thurston County sheriff's deputy, was stopped in March 2004 in Grays Harbor County for a DUI arrest -- one of five such stops while he carried a badge. How his face was bloodied was never determined, but his service weapon was in the car. (August 02, 2007)
Credit: Washington State Patrol

[elkfersupper]

The nationwide standard is 0.08% BAC..

The nationwide standard is 0.00%.

If you doubt me, just try to eke your way through one of those infernal checkpoints sometime after having admitted you have had ANYTHING to drink or have taken ANY drugs (including Tylenol).

[unixfox]

I don't think this would ever pass. Heck, the revenue alone that DWI's generate is just too much for them to give up.

Kinda like cigarettes. They won't kill the golden goose.

[Navy Patriot]

Libertarian ping!

Uh oh, Bryan is in for it now.

[elkfersupper]

But when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, he doesn't just endanger himself. He endangers everybody on the road.

Define "drunk".

[Bryan]

Whether or not the level of alcohol that it detects is enough for you, as an individual, to be impaired is an entirely different question.

Okay, I saw this one coming. There are a lot of laws that are completely arbitrary. For example, the law that says you have to be 16 to get a driver's license. I have known a few 15-year-olds who were very responsible young men and women -- on an individual level, I would trust them to drive a car. And I have known a few people in their 30s and 40s who are completely irresponsible, and just can't be trusted with a driver's license.

Government doesn't have the resources to test people's responsibility on an individual level. So it has to pick a completely arbitrary threshold: the 16th birthday. It's the same with BAC.

... you have to resort to the hyperbole that anyone who has had a drink is drunk ...

Another strawman has been erected. I've already said that to account for the machines' margin of error, they'd have to be set at 0.10% BAC or legal drivers will be prevented form driving, and there will be lawsuits. The manufacturers don't want lawsuits. To reach 0.10% BAC, most people need to have three drinks. If you're Nicole Richie, you'd still need two drinks.

So, you are advocating a strict measure of control over 100% of the people in order to stop 1% from being potential hazards.

That 1% kills thousands of people every year, and the "strict measure of control" just keeps people from driving drunk. There's nothing "strict" about it.

[Eaker]

Then answer ALL of the other posts pointing out the engineering problems that are not taught in basket weaving and law school.

You are wrong on this issue and I have pointed you out as a liar.

One of the best days of my life was destroying a “John Edwards” when he smugly put me on the stand in a lawsuit against my company. I was in my early 20’s and he asked questions that he didn’t know my answers to. One of us knew that this was not a great strategy. He is probably weaving a great basket today.

His client was hitting him with her purse as they left.

[elkfersupper]

What’s to stop me drinking after I start the car?.

Periodic mandatory re-test.

[Bryan]

If the special report on DUI cops in the Seattle area is true, these devices should be installed on the cops' personal vehicles.

I couldn't agree more. That would be a great place to start.

[Navy Patriot]

Beat ya, see #58.

[unixfox]

Your such a good little lemming. I bet you wear makeup too.

[elkfersupper]

Bullcrap, an ashtray cost $400.

Most of that is a tax designed to defeat the other major plague on society, Smoking While Human (SWH).