Posted on 06/28/2008 7:30:35 PM PDT by elkfersupper
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.
My ‘05 Jeep Wrangler, with manual everything; crank up windows, no “beep, beep” door locks, etc. was the last vehicle that I’ll ever buy new.
Only if she's not guilty.
I’m sure your car’s on board computer will record your BAC and use OnStar to email the local authorities to inform them that you have attempted to start your car while under the influence.
Thank you.
Nice MN-12. I guess I’ll be keeping my Fox Bird running for the foreseeable future.
Next step.
A device in your vehicle which detects you smoking a cigarette, and reports you to the LE, so they can fine you for public smoking.
Not to worry, it’d be followed by a gizmo available on eBay that’d deliver a breath of fresh air for you drunk or not.
However, this effort is beginning to get costly. At what expense is a society willing to spend to remove that last pesky DWI/DUI driver from the road. And, once that goal has been achieved, will they go after the mentally unfit driver? Will we be required to undergo a brain scan before the ignition switch is activated? How much money will be spent to annoy the motoring public with increased costs and paraphernalia for the little results but big return for the groups that push them.
Ping.
Thanks for the ping!
So how would the car know that you were wearing gloves? Heat? sweat? Suppose it’s winter and you’re freezing your fingers off? I can see so many ways this won’t pan out.
Good reason to buy used.
That guy gives a new meaning to “eat my shorts” EEEEEEEUUUUUU!!!!!!!
Try it out on all critters cars first.
If you bartend, you aren't driving home from work?
...And any of a host of other substances (MEK, perfume, methanol, solvents, Purell, Isopropanol) which can get on your skin that the machine will read as trace amounts of alcohol, which will be multiplied by a gozillion to get your B.A.C. (just like the breathalyxer multiplies your alvaeolar air alcohol content by 1400 to get a BAC), will mean you get to sit this drive out.
And if you are alone and have to go somewhere (or just run the heater) 'cause it is 30 below outside, at least your relatives will get to have your frozen corpse tested before they sue the automakers...
Hyperbole? Not in North Dakota.
I have known two people who froze to death, (one on her doorstep, the other automatically locked out of his car with the keys inside at -30F with wind chill at -50), and another who came really close.
I think this is a damnably dumb idea.
And I don't drink.
Not to mention that gasoline itself is now often blended with ethanol.
It IS becoming a religion, along with "health" and "green." Unfortunately, there are a good amount of people on this site who bow to these falsehoods. I detest them and their falsehoods.
Just imagine - you know you have to drive to work monday, so 4-6 weeks before then, you apply for a gov't travel permit. If you're lucky, the police show up on time... 3 am monday morning. After conducting the blood and urine tests, and a search of your house, car and person (just to be sure), they hand you your keys and it's off to work you go!
The union-led GM plant in Janesville, WI is closing. Thousands of jobs lost, even though our ‘Rat Governor GAVE them hundreds of thousands of dollars in some sort of “taxpayer grants” a few years back to try to convince GM NOT to close that plant.
Too bad, not sad, other than the loss of tax dollars that went to union thugs and could’ve been used to fill in potholes in our horrendous roads!
I do think my Crazy Uncle Dave should have had one of these installed in his car ages ago. He’s was total drunk driver, but now he’s found Jesus and is sober. We’ll see how long that lasts...this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.