A Breathalyzer in Every Car...

[Klackamas]

"In response to concerns about limited progress in
reducing alcohol-impaired driving in the United
States during the last decade, attention is
focusing on technological approaches to the
problem.  One strategy includes efforts to
increase the application of current breath alcohol
ignition interlocks on the vehicles of Driving
While Intoxicated (DWI) offenders.  However,
in recognition that many alcohol-impaired
drivers have not been convicted of DWI, an
effort is underway to develop advanced in-
vehicle technologies that could be fitted in
vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood
alcohol concentration non-invasively....."

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ESV/esv21/09-0464.pdf

[Eye of the Tiger]

I will move the fuck to Canada, I fucking swear.

[giant_mtb]

Hahahahaha okay.

[giant_mtb]

Lately, the numbers have been going down...

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html

[Soup DeVille]

I will move the fuck to Canada, I fucking swear.

I'll ride a damned horse.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'll ride a damned horse.

Fuck horses. I will build a car that has no electronics, and therefore cannot be governed by this stupid ass breath interlock bull shit. Steam powered car.

[GoCougs]

Understandable really. Americans and their addictions ruin it for the rest of us. The problem is the drop in alcohol DUI has been well more than offset by weed and 'script DUI.

[280Z Turbo]

Fuck horses. I will build a car that has no electronics, and therefore cannot be governed by this stupid ass breath interlock bull shit. Steam powered car.

I'll stick with a Model T

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'll stick with a Model T

Model T has electronic ignition. The government will wire the breathalyzer into the magneto switch.

[Rich]

So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?

Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.

[giant_mtb]

So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?

Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.

I'm sorry, but my 61 year old mother shouldn't have to blow a breathalyzer to go buy suet for the birds.

[giant_mtb]

But as far as that drunk guy goes who then hits my mother cause he crossed the center line...he shouldve had one!

Shit. Double sword edged.

[Soup DeVille]

So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?

Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.

No, not even.

This line of reasoning is right up there with "if you're no hiding anything, why won't you let us search you?"
100% Bullshit.

[Soup DeVille]

But as far as that drunk guy goes who then hits my mother cause he crossed the center line...he shouldve had one!

Shit. Double sword edged.

Security. Freedom.

How much of each do you want, because you can't have both.

[giant_mtb]

I prefer freedom.  Much much preferred.

[Rich]

I'd prefer the death penalty for first time DUI offences rather than this, but I know the death penalty wouldn't fly.

In the same vein, I'd like a "crazy meter" that can sense if a person is mentally prepared for fire a weapon, rather than take guns away.

[Soup DeVille]

I prefer freedom.  Much much preferred.

Not always and you know it.

[Soup DeVille]

I'd prefer the death penalty for first time DUI offences rather than this, but I know the death penalty wouldn't fly.

In the same vein, I'd like a "crazy meter" that can sense if a person is mentally prepared for fire a weapon, rather than take guns away.

I'm pretty sure desiring to kill first time DUI offenders should be one of those things that triggers alarms on the crazy meter.

[Rich]

I'm pretty sure desiring to kill first time DUI offenders should be one of those things that triggers alarms on the crazy meter.

I just don't understand why people feel the need to drive after drinking.  It's the same logic to me as someone stabbing themselves in the face with a large knife.  Does society really want someone like that to handle a gun, knife, or car?

So the death penalty is a bit harsh.  Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe

[giant_mtb]

Not always and you know it.

Well, yeah.

[AutobahnSHO]

Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe

I'd go for that.

People don't intend to drive drunk, they just don't make good plans. They also suffer from bad decisions making and lack of self-control.

[RomanChariot]

Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe

Why punish the car. How about they sell the car and use the proceeds to purchase bus or taxi transportation for the convicted. That might help allow them to get to and from a job so they have a chance at being a productive member of society without being like the other drunk drivers who just keep driving without a license.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I would rather have extremely severe penalties for violations, and much stronger driver education. Lifetime driver suspension for first violation. Life in prison/death if a collision results in any personal injury.

[giant_mtb]

And the mass incarceration of America continues.

[BENZ BOY15]

I seriously doubt this will happen, at least in the US, because it is a pretty big invasion of privacy. They may start on it but I'm fairly certain lawsuits of all kinds would come raining down like a ton of bricks. It's like saying we're going to set up illegal drug sensors (don't think it exists, but for the same of the argument let's assume) in homes that are built new. Sure, you may catch illegal activity but it also wouldn't be right.

[BENZ BOY15]

"be fitted in vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood
alcohol concentration non-invasively."

"a non-regulatory approach"



What a load of crap.

[giant_mtb]

Non invasively, to me, means some sort of sensor in the vehicle that catches ambient breath near the driver. So what would happen when I'm totally sober trying to drive three drunk friends home and their loud drunk breath keeps shutting my damn car off. It's not like they'll rig up an override because that would defeat the whole purpose.  Nope, sorry, gotta walk for being responsible.

[BENZ BOY15]

Non invasively, to me, means some sort of sensor in the vehicle that catches ambient breath near the driver. So what would happen when I'm totally sober trying to drive three drunk friends home and their loud drunk breath keeps shutting my damn car off. It's not like they'll rig up an override because that would defeat the whole purpose.  Nope, sorry, gotta walk for being responsible.

I disagree. By definition it's invasive, even if it's a passive system like that versus a normal breathalyzer during a traffic stop. As far as sober driver driving drunk friends scenario, I'd imagine there are ways to get around that and focus just on the driver. If that wasn't the case, then the whole thing would fall apart because designated drivers help prevent drunk driving in the first place.

Putting that aside, the whole built-in-breathalyzer proposal is  similar to putting a camera in somebody's car to see if they'll catch any illegal activity. The paper says that, well, this new system is needed because there are a lot of people who get away with drunk driving. Just because people do illegal activity in cars doesn't mean that every car needs to have systems to prevent that. You're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and this, to me anyway, strikes me as big-brother ish.

Maybe I missed it, but the study doesn't talk about the legal challenges that would almost surely arise from this. Maybe in other countries they can get away with it but in the US, I just can't imagine they would get past privacy laws, search and seizure and all that. If the car detects a drunk driver, is that automatically reported to the government? Which part of government? Is that in-car breathalyzer evidence that can be used in a court of law or does there have to be another test done by a cop?

It just doesn't seem that well thought through.

[giant_mtb]

No, it would simply not let the car turn on. No way it would ever be allowed to automatically report to the government. If it detected alcohol, let you drive anyway, and told the cops where you were...that's just entrapment. Or sleaze.

By non invasive, they mean something that isn't a device with a straw clamped to your dashboard you have to blow .00 in to start your car, as in the devices installed in vehicles of repeat DUI offenders.

[BENZ BOY15]

No, it would simply not let the car turn on. No way it would ever be allowed to automatically report to the government. If it detected alcohol, let you drive anyway, and told the cops where you were...that's just entrapment. Or sleaze.

By non invasive, they mean something that isn't a device with a straw clamped to your dashboard you have to blow .00 in to start your car, as in the devices installed in vehicles of repeat DUI offenders.

Yeah the reporting to the authorities would never fly.

Even still, what do you do about all the cars on the road that don't have them? Seems like it'll only be effective if every car has one or at least a substantial portion. Even if they equip every car starting this year with one, it's going to be a long....long time before it becomes widespread.  I'm sure their intentions are good but I doubt it'll amount to anything. Then there's the issue of whether car companies would want to do this because it's voluntary.

Maybe in 20 years we'll come back to this thread and see what it amounted to.