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.

[Quix]

Ahhh.

I sometimes need a /sar tag! LOL.

As you can see from the thread . . . some folks make incredibly outlandish statements they seem to want taken at face value.

Cheers.

[capitalist229]

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

We would do more for highway safety by disabling cell phones or imposing an IQ test.

There are tradeoffs and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

You do gooders really need to start minding your own business instead of trying to make everybody else miserable.

BUMP

[Pencil]

I’m not saying I support this current proposal, but we do have the government monitoring many things about our lives.

What about the Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping on US citizens? I support these because of its national security value. I don’t believe the 4th Amendment was ever intended to promote illegality. In my humble opinion, the main rationale for the 4th Amendment is so law-abiding citizens don’t have to go through the inconvenience of searches and risk government impropriety.

[Bryan]

First of all, define 'drunk'. You cant do it for me,cause you dont know me, so Im sure youll retreat to the 'legal' definition.

The old legal definition (0.100% BAC) is good enough for me. If you've got that much alcohol in your system, you're impaired.

Now about endangering lives, severely impaired drivers are dangerous. There are also a bagillion other dangers while driving. that so called 40% fatalities are alcohol related , if even statistically true,is skewed by the mere presence of BAC or the cops 'smelling' alcohol.

If you think it isn't true, there's a black helicopter on its way to deliver your tinfoil hat. If you think the 40% figure is skewed, present your evidence. Drunk drivers are the greatest danger on our roads, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.

Now to 'no criminal consequences'-I'll simply refer you back to youre definition of 'drunk'. sounds criminal now.

I'll simply repeat my earlier comment: as long as the BAC data isn't recorded or transmitted to law enforcement, it isn't an illegal search. If some misguided Nanny State Democrats in the state legislature try to require that, you can count on me to fight like hell against it. But as it now stands, the BAC data isn't recorded or transmitted to law enforcement.

I sure hope theres a special place in Hell for ambulance chasers ...

Like labor unions, they have a level of power that's too easily abused. So on that we can agree. There are too many lawyers out there who are too eager to file frivolous litigation, if there's a chance they can get some money out of a deep pocket. There need to be stronger sanctions by the courts against such misconduct.

Been there, done that. BTW I pulled off the road to sleep for a while, because I WAS drunk. Woke me up to go to jail.

Like my daddy always said: "If you're going to pull over and sleep it off, hide your keys in the air intake. They never look there."

Should law-abiding citizens have to bear the implicit cost of such a device?

Like I said, the version that measures BAC through the skin on your hand adds about $100 to the price of the car; and it's the cheapest insurance policy I can think of.

What about false positives?

What would cause a false positive? Wearing too much cheap cologne?

We would do more for highway safety by disabling cell phones or imposing an IQ test.

Well, you might be interested to know that they're also developing a jammer that will prevent reception of a cell phone signal to a hand-held phone, but allow reception if it's routed through a headset that's plugged into the dashboard. (I don't think it's going to be required OEM equipment, because there are "earpiece" cell phones that are perfectly legal.) IQ testing is subsumed in the written exam when you get your license - if you're too stupid to drive, you won't pass the written exam.

There are tradeoffs and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I couldn't agree more. Nevertheless, this idea seems to be pretty good.

[fr_freak]

What about the Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping on US citizens? I support these because of its national security value. I don’t believe the 4th Amendment was ever intended to promote illegality. In my humble opinion, the main rationale for the 4th Amendment is so law-abiding citizens don’t have to go through the inconvenience of searches and risk government impropriety.

I've never actually read the Patriot Act, and I suspect that most people who are against it (as well as many who voted for it) have never read it either. However, I will say that the provisions in the Patriot Act are probably more constitutional than federally-mandated breathalyzers on automobiles. That's because the Constitution specifically allows the President the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in time of war, and I very much believe we are at war, not just in Iraq, but globally. We have, in fact, been invaded by an unknown number of foreign nationals who would love nothing more than to destroy us completely.

A breathalyzer on an automobile, however, is nothing more than one more method of control the government places on its population. Quite frankly, if we, the people were to accept this new level of control, we might as well stop pretending that we are free people, or that we are people worthy of freedom. There are so many unnecessary and intrusive controls, laws and regulations on us now that if we do not take a stand and say "no more", then we can just forget the whole concept of "of the people, for the people, by the people".

You see, the easiest way for a government to assume near total control over a population is to make so many things illegal that one cannot even get out of bed in the morning without breaking some law, after which the government can harass or arrest you at will, presumably with the support of the people who blindly believe in law and order without examining the context of that law and order.

[fr_freak]

...But PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS A CONSERVATIVE VALUE.

And where there is AUTHENTIC, VIABLE, EFFECTIVE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, there is no need of such draconion laws, regs, practices...

Yes, personal responsibility is a conservative value, which is exactly one of the reasons why a mandated breathalyzer is such a horrible idea. The breathalyzer actually removes personal responsibility from the individual. An individual now can drink a lot, or drink a little, or not drink at all, and never has to make the decision whether it is appropriate to drive or not. His car (as a proxy for the government) will make it for him.

What if the breathalyzer malfunctions? What if it allows someone who has a BAC of .10 to start his car? Once that person wrecks and kills someone, that person will blame the car manufacturer, or the government, saying "It's not my fault - the car allowed me to drive, so I figured I must have been safe." With the breathalyzer, even the opportunity to exercise personal judgment and responsibility has been removed, and replaced with whatever arbitrary standard the government feels like making today.

So, you must realize that such a device could only be implemented once we've decided that we no longer wish ANYONE to exercise personal responsibility.

[janetjanet998]

people like you make me sick..

The MADD gang and DUI laws were good to begin with years ago but these laws have become so watered down as to what "drunk" is and have become mostly nothing more then huge money scams including 4-5 fines for the same "crime".

There is a huge backlash growing over this kind of crap

People like you use overblown statistics(such as the very broad defination of "alcohol related") and media sob stories(Mrs Smith was hit by a drunk driver and now can't walk..but fail to mention the driver was super drunk with a BAC of over .20) to screw the average social drinker that gets stopped at roadblocks(while driving fine) and gets a DUI with a BAC of .09.

Many people are just too dumb or naive to see the bigger picture and DUI laws are yet another example of the slippery-slope that happenes when a new law is passed...

Many people, such as myself, agreed years ago to get the drunks off the road and supported the laws....but they were thinking of people that were really drunk and surrving all over when these laws were introduced back then..the legal limit back then was higher .12 to .15 in alot of states

If someone 20 years ago came up with the idea of handing out 4-5 fines totaling $3000 for having a few drinks at .08(the limit here in IL was .15, then .12 then .10 and thats to Clinton now .08), getting arrested and hauled off to jail, and forcing every car to be installed with a device that won't start if you are over the limit, they would of been the laughing stock of the nation

[janetjanet998]

after reading my post to you to sounds mean and rude if you take it the wrong way..it wasn’t intended to be that way(an atatck on you personaly)

[Kozak]

Be better if they had a quick IQ test to keep the stupid off the road.

Oh yeah a cell phone interlock to shut the engine off when a cell phone is used in the vehicle would be nice too. /sarc

[A knight without armor]

“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.”

That is ok. Then they will have a cigarette smoke/snuff detector saying an unhealthy smoker does not care about their life or the lives of others (second hand smoke) and therefore would not drive safely.

Then they will have a scales in the seat to prevent drivers over a set weight limit from driving because they are not only unhealthy thinkers but lack the flexibility and good sense to react to situations.

[Bryan]

If someone 20 years ago came up with the idea of handing out 4-5 fines totaling $3000 for having a few drinks at .08(the limit here in IL was .15, then .12 then .10 and thats to Clinton now .08), getting arrested and hauled off to jail, and forcing every car to be installed with a device that won't start if you are over the limit, they would of been the laughing stock of the nation

If somebody had said 20 years ago that we'd be going through metal detectors and standing in line for 4 hours to get on 90-minute flights, and that we'd have to give up our shampoo, our toothpaste and our cigarette lighters to get on the plane, he would have been the laughingstock of the nation. Times change. We respond.

That is ok. Then they will have a cigarette smoke/snuff detector saying an unhealthy smoker does not care about their life or the lives of others (second hand smoke) and therefore would not drive safely. Then they will have a scales in the seat to prevent drivers over a set weight limit from driving because they are not only unhealthy thinkers but lack the flexibility and good sense to react to situations.

No, I don't envision that happening. Overweight drivers and drivers who smoke don't kill thousands of people every year.

[A knight without armor]

No but you know how everyone seems to be in a conga line.

The car people should make a baby seat that goes off if the kid is left in the car. Mothers should get MAD about these baked babies and make them do something.

[Quix]

Evidently you haven’t read all my posts above.

I don’t really prefer such devices in all cars.

Though I also prefer burned-to-death innocent children even less.

I don’t know what a good, balanced, etc. solution would be.

But, it’s a moot issue. The sweep of history will flush this issue by the wayside within months to a few years. There will be far more urgent survival issues routinely screaming at increasing percentages of the populace as the puppet masters help shred life as we have known it on their way to reducing the global population to 200-500 million.

In terms of the blood alcohol level, there’s solid reasons to set it at 0.08 in terms of judgment impairment (how close is too close; stopping when is sufficient etc.); fine motor coordination impairment; vision impairment. That’s an empirical issue that’s been long settled by solid research.

The what if’s you threw out don’t seem all that . . . reasonable to pontificate about any further.

[Gilbo_3]

The old legal definition (0.100% BAC) is good enough for me. If you've got that much alcohol in your system, you're impaired

Now that weve gotten back to that random number thingy again, riddle me this Batman... How do I know when Ive crossed that magical threshold between freedom and increased highway fund generation ???

If its about 'safety',[Ive never said anything near that I condone DRUNK driving, though I have done much of it in the past ] lets make it 0.00 and be intellectually honest. Rather than having people make descisions based on an arbitrary limit that no person can independently confirm.

Oh wait, thats why everyone, including tee-totalars must purchase and maintain a breathalyser interlock system.

next riddle... say I start the car, get pulled over a mile down the road and the cop's machine says Im over limit, In court whose machine wins the case and who pays the fines and other BS charges for the next 5 yrs???

Let me guess, I should PAY A LAWYER to fight the case in criminal as well as civil court. Its a lose-lose situation for Joe citizen.

If you think the 40% figure is skewed, present your evidence.

NHTSB is evidence enough, because they include ANY alcohol or SUSPICION of alcohol anywhere near the accident, even including passengers drinking while the driver is not etc etc...similar to the way that police shootings are lumped into firearms death totals...

But as it now stands, the BAC data isn't recorded or transmitted to law enforcement.

OK, this time I will don my hat... A slow night in a small town, my GPS signals a start failure, as I ponder the thought of who to call, my ride shows up on the scene and politely asks if Im having 'car trouble', says something about smelling a pungent odor and ... probale cause by chance meeting and I need to call a LAWYER...

BTW $100 for any computer related system on your car is a pipedream. As a wrench turner, I guarantee that there will be MANY failures, and the costs for basic 'no start' complaint diagnostics will rise for every consumer due to this retarded scheme by adding more variables to the starting system.

[Gilbo_3]

"It's not my fault - the car allowed me to drive, so I figured I must have been safe."

Better call a LAWYER. actually, this was a part of the point I was trying to make above...

[Fred Hayek]

These contraptions were actually being considered as mandatory equipment in New Mexico in 2001.

[Tench_Coxe]

You know what I think is a good idea? Let this be done, then, on the first fatality, serious injury, or crime (such as rape) that is linked to the failure of one of these devices:

Members of MADD, the politicians pushing this, and any other nanny stater supporting it should be thrown in prison.

Deal?

[nkycincinnatikid]

“alcohol is a factor in 40% of our highway fatalities”
moving thru space faster than a slow crawl is responsible for 99.9% of highway fatalities. Make us all travel on all four and somebody Dies!

[Rembrandt]

Coming down the pike is a sensor on restaurant doors that will check to see if you’ve consumed trans-fats in the past week. If so, the door will not open for you.

Just the Village watching out for you, doncha know?

[Rembrandt]

“I wonder how this would work in Wyoming in the winter as 100% of the drivers are wearing gloves from October through March.”

Can y’all picture Ted Kennedy, on a hot July day, driving his car wearing a deep sea diver’s suit?