Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?
June 23rd, 2008 Posted in DUI/DWI
By 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.

Original Article

[pex]

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.

Some people wear gloves while driving.

[paul]

I knew an old guy who drank at the local bar, I walked in one day, right past his car, and saw a whole bunch of balloons in the back seat. I recognized his car, so when I went in I asked him if it was someones birthday. He said nope, and he'd show me something. We walked back out to his car and he said, they put one of those damn breathalyzers on my car, he showed me how he would blow up a few balloons before he started drinking, and when he was done he'd use the balloon to start the car.

Not advocating drunk driving, but you have to admire good old american ingenuity.

[Mabuz]

Why don't they take everyone's kids away at birth too, it would help prevent child abuse.

Hell, why don't they just force everyone to ride public transportation and make cars illegal...I bet that would drastically cut vehicular related deaths.


This crap is getting out of hand.

[jahwarrior72]

Proposed Laws to Protect the Public Purse & General well being of the majority:

1.) Forbid conception in cases where either partner is known to possess a gene which creates a statistical liklihood the fetus will develop with costly handicaps.

2.) Forbid the sale of all alcohol

3.) Suspend driving privileges for life for anyone convicted of a single DUI

4.) Sterilize all humans with IQ’s < 80

5.) With hold ALL treatment for people who develop type II diabetes as a result of lifestyle, including with holding insulin, and even dialysis.

6.) With hold treatment for all STD’s which could have been prevented using condoms.

7.) Impose staggering "Windfall Profits" taxes on pharmaceutical companies, and return those revenues to taxpayers to subsidize RX prices which shock the conscience.

8.) Require all who engage in high risk activities such as extreme climbing, skydiving, etc. to sign waivers agreeing not to seek health care insurance in any form as a result of any injuies incurred.

9.) Outlaw ALL cigarettes

10.) Structure Income Taxes such that credits are awarded based on general health, as measured by BMI, BP, etc. Exemptions could be made for congenital or environmentally acquired health problems.

[1911lover]

great article.

[CommonHighrise]

Jahwarrior, you really need to add a or something at the end of posts like that, I nearly burst a blood vessel.

As for the OP, man I really love the idea of my car taking a sample of the chemicals I have in my bloodstream just so I can drive to work in the morning. No doubt this will be linked up with OBDIII and we can have the entire Big Brother package.

But beyond the fact that this is beyond unconstitutional, pointless, and will be shot down, the govt. is blowing 10 million dollars on this concept. Im paying $4/gal for overinflated gasoline, and our government is blowing millions to develop a useless and illegal technology, and there are people heralding this as a good thing. I give up.

[IV_Warrior]

Originally Posted by CommonHighrise

As for the OP, man I really love the idea of my car taking a sample of the chemicals I have in my bloodstream just so I can drive to work in the morning. No doubt this will be linked up with OBDIII and we can have the entire Big Brother package.

OBD3? hell this is GM we're talking about. They'd probably link it to OnStar and have it call 911 to report you for attempting to drive while intoxicated.......

[MrUgly]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

Proposed Laws to Protect the Public Purse & General well being of the majority:

1.) Forbid conception in cases where either partner is known to possess a gene which creates a statistical likelihood the fetus will develop with costly handicaps.

2.) Forbid the sale of all alcohol

3.) Suspend driving privileges for life for anyone convicted of a single DUI

4.) Sterilize all humans with IQ’s < 80

5.) With hold ALL treatment for people who develop type II diabetes as a result of lifestyle, including with holding insulin, and even dialysis.

6.) With hold treatment for all STD’s which could have been prevented using condoms.

7.) Impose staggering "Windfall Profits" taxes on pharmaceutical companies, and return those revenues to taxpayers to subsidize RX prices which shock the conscience.

8.) Require all who engage in high risk activities such as extreme climbing, skydiving, etc. to sign waivers agreeing not to seek health care insurance in any form as a result of any injuries incurred.

9.) Outlaw ALL cigarettes

10.) Structure Income Taxes such that credits are awarded based on general health, as measured by BMI, BP, etc. Exemptions could be made for congenital or environmentally acquired health problems.

You know, none of these are terribly onerous to me. I don't smoke cigarettes, I don't drink, I don't engage in high-risk activities (aside from posting on internet chat rooms), I'm monogamous, I have one child and he's damned near perfect, and I exercise regularly.

I wouldn't vote for it, but to be perfectly honest, there could be far worse curtailments of our civil liberties. I protest them on principal as I think they are a tad draconian, but that would save a boatload of money and keep people from dying. Well, they'd still die, but mostly from boredom.

[Lizabet]

My guess is we misunderstand the term "safety". It's not OUR safety that the think-tanks coming up with this stuff are worried about, in my opinion - it's their own. Replace "safety" with "liability" and there ya go.

The product of all these years of frivolous lawsuits, I'd bet.

And hell no I don't want one on my car. It's not even that I barely drink 4 or 5 Mike's Hard Lemonades a year (or maybe a Smirnoff's Ice every few months...) it's just the whole idea. *shudders*