I’m rarely the one advocating a nanny state solution, and I am no Puritan as far as my history of responsible decisionmaking regarding alcohol. But in the course of a defensive driving program I did to lower my insurance rates, I refreshed my recollection of just how many accidents and fatalities are caused by drunk driving – it’s a horrifying number.
Is there any technological or policy reason we couldn’t just have all cars made with a breathalyzer interlock that disables the ignition when you’re over the legal limit? A guy I knew had to have one for a period of time after a DUI, and he said that, other than having to avoid mouthwash right before he got in the car, it wasn’t really a hassle. If they’re accurate enough not to cause much trouble – why not make them mandatory? There’s really no countervailing argument for why someone who’s legally intoxicated should be able to drive. And I think the privacy invasion is minimal, since it’s not like it would be reported or anything – you’d just have to wait awhile/sleep it off, then try again. It wouldn’t be fail-safe – people could slug a few right before getting in the car, pass the test, and then have the alcohol hit them a few minutes later, or, they could drink after starting the car. But I’d have to think it would cut out the great majority of bad decisions to get behind the wheel. No?
You’ve been drinking. You’ve had just enough alcohol to put you over the legal limit, but you’re still capable of driving. Keep in mind that some people have very high tolerances for alcohol and can put down a lot of booze and still have their faculties. You’re walking to the car, from the bar, and three guys come up behind you and start following you. You turn a corner into an alley, towards the parking lot, and they’re still following you. It’s starting to freak you out. You finally get into your car - they surround you and clearly intend to rob you or jack your car. One of them has a crowbar. You try to start your car. You can’t, because you’re over the legal alcohol limit.
Quite right; that’s why it’s illegal and carries substantial penalties.
But as someone who already doesn’t drink and drive, I’d resent having to pay extra for my car to be outfitted with such a device. So would my friends, none of whom drink and drive.
I’d resent having to pay to maintain it. And I’d be downright pissed if it malfunctioned and left me stranded somewhere.
Nationwide (in the US), you’re talking about 75 million vehicles sold per year. Suppose the device costs $100 (just a guess); that’s $7.5B per year in extra costs. Ouch.
The purpose of a car is to respond to its driver. The driver is the master. The car is the slave. If I want to drive my car 100 miles an hour, it’s my car’s job to do what I tell it to do. If I want to drive my car into the mud, or on the grass, or up a steep grade, even if it’s not the wisest or safest thing to do, the car is supposed to obey these orders unquestioningly. When cars start NOT LETTING YOU do stuff, that’s bullshit, in my opinion.
I am assuming he means the portion of the car price that goes to the sensor is tax-deductible, to the car mfr. or the consumer, and/or a tax credit could be available. Only the latter would truly cancel out the whole cost.
A higher probability scenario is one in which you have an emergency, or are in a sketchy area at night, or are in a remote area, and the device simply malfunctions, stranding you.
This is a really bad idea, IMHO. While it might be acceptable to force someone convicted of DUI to get one of these devices, it’s ridiculous to force them on law-abiding citizens. Just like gun control laws, you are saying that the citizenry cannot be trusted. Nanny-state thinking at its finest. :rolleyes:
They are one more thing that could break down and disable your car.
Would rental cars be exempt from this requirement? If not, how would you deal with the hygiene issues? Would you want to put something in your mouth that a stranger had put in their mouth? Most people probably wouldn’t. You’d have the same issue if you borrowed someone else’s car or took your car to a mechanic. Unlike public toilet seats, this would be a risk for transmitting diseases like oral herpes or hepatitis (or, more prosaically, colds or flu). Something with your spit on it sitting out in the car for a long time seems like it would be at risk for growing mold or mildew, as well.
They could also get someone else to blow into the sensor for them. This person wouldn’t have to be someone who could drive (it could be a child, for example) or who was going to be in the same car with the driver after the car was started.
You’d think someone who did this might get a break on their car insurance.
Did I endorse this? Nope. Just explained what he was thinking. My record on how and when we should spend “government money” is not on the “progressive” side, and as noted, I’m generally anti-regulation. I had an instinctive revulsion when I thought of the idea, but then thinking of all the DWI deaths, I thought “I’m surprised MADD or someone hasn’t pushed this further than they have.” Put differently: PETA has gotten more traction for truly dumb ideas (“Milk will make your kids diabetic”) than any support I’ve ever heard for wider use of interlocks.
I’m still against these devices, but this is a trivial objection to overcome. All you need are removable, disposable mouthpieces.
This would be the only situation in which I might not object to such devices–provided that a person voluntarily installed them on their vehicle in exchange for lower insurance rates. I’m not sure how much of a discount insurance companies would offer though, considering how easily they are bypassed (i.e. having someone else blow into the devices).
Also, I would fear that this would lead to a slippery slope in which the devices subsequently became mandated, rather like…car insurance, for example.
