That’s an interesting idea, but an interlock device by itself won’t accomplish your goal. This seems to be an example of ignition interlock devices that can be installed in cars. You’ll not that it does not claim to do anything more than measure your breath concentration of alcohol. Therefore, it would not stop the intoxicated driver who has an alcohol concentration under the limit. To truly prevent an intoxicated driver from operating a motor vehicle, you’ll need to find something more invasive, such as sobriety testing from trained personnel.
No, because you can see the drunk driving check ahead of you, and if you don’t want to do the search you can turn around. 
Just leave the car on when you go into a bar.
I call bullshit on this entire line of reasoning. It’s like when a kid is served shitty food, and complains, and the parent says “Kids are STARVING in Ethiopia, and you’re complaining because we serve you Macaroni and Cheese everyday with no variety? Shut up!”
The kid’s complaint about getting crappy food is still valid, regardless of whether other children are starving in Ethiopia.
Complaints about invasion of privacy are still valid, even if much worse things are going on in the world.
Don’t use the starving ethiopians as an excuse to start serving me Macaroni and Cheese! And don’t use the tortured cambodians as an excuse to perform a search on my breath every time I get into a vehicle, with no probable cause.
Couldn’t people just breathe into an airtight bag before they got drunk, then attach it to the breathalizer afterwards or is that unworkable.
Anyone could blow into the tube and start the car.
Where would you stop? Every year thousands of geriatrics fall and break a hip. Should they be required to wear a rubber donut? There are an infinite number of ways to ensure the safety of people. There would be no end to the intrusions.
Just outlaw alcohol. It’s one of the deadliest drugs, so you might as well.
If I had to guess people who would benifit from something like this would just have it removed. So I doubt any real benifit would come from it.
We tried banning it in the 1920s. We thought it would usher in a new age of clean and sober living. Didn’t turn out so well.
Wrong. Using public roads is a privilege. Tooling around on your own property with your own car is a right.
How will the interlock know whether you’re on public or private property?
Yes, but an elderly person falling down rarely kills other people.
But no, I would not be in favor of it for the general public. For most of the reasons already stated.
DUI penalties, on the other hand, should be FAR tougher.
Motor vehicles can be deadly weapons but they can also be lifesavers, e.g. ambulances, police cars, fire engines.
What if someone had a few drinks and then had to use their cars in an emergency?
Any time I have someone that needs emergency medical attention, I transport them to the hospital myself. I can get to the nearest hosptial faster than any ambulance can get to my house, let alone to my house and then to the hospital. If I’ve had a few beers and then a guest has a medical emergency, my vehicle breathalyzer then becomes a liability to human life doesn’t it.
Bad idea. Any time regulations are imposed universally to police isolated stupidity, you run into problems.
The laws don’t have to be tougher, just enforced. When I see drunks, with 10 dui’s and a suspended license, kill someone, I GO NUTS.
On the flip side, I was dismayed at the Federal Government’s blackmailing of States in order to lower the dui level to .08. I would like some scientific evidence that .08 is the right number. It could be .06 or 1.3. I want some numbers to back it up. Personally, I like coordination tests as a means of nailing people.
Most of these laws come from MADD. While I agree, somewhat, with their goals, I question whether they need to be applied so generally. MADD is rapididly becoming the PETA of alcohol.
I would not find any percentage an acceptable argument for mandatory breathalyzers on car ignitions.
First of all, a determined drunk can get around them. A common scam is to take an underage and easily manipulated child along to blow into the device for the inebriated driver. A child that might not, otherwise, be in the car. There are numerous variations on this theme.
Second, any time you add a gizmo to a vehicle you also install one more thing that can malfunction. There is also additional cost. Since the vast, overwhelming majority of people do not require these measures to refrain from drunk driving this is a useless measure for them.
The breathlyzer-on-every-car is NOT like putting rubber butt bumpers on old geezers with bad hips who might fall - it’s like forcing EVERYONE to wear rubber butt bumpers.
The other problem I have with the concept is that because you are relying on a mechainical device it’s too easily defeated. A human administering a breathalyzer prior to handing over the car keys would be far more reliable – but totally impractical given the number of cars and how they’re used. Might work if everyone rented cars rather than owned them, and therefore would have to interact with a human to obtain keys and vehicles. But that’s not reality.
I think a better course would be severe and consistent penalities for drunk driving. Barring bizarre emergency circumstances, there really is no excuse for drunk driving. Certainly by the second offense you should lose your license and do jail time. If caught driving drunk a third time (presumably without license in this scenario) then extensive jail time. If abuse the liberty of traveling freely by putting others in danger, then you lose your freedom of movement for the good of those you might otherwise hurt.
Scylla, did your friend also mention the huge amounts of legal disclaimers that people have to sign when they have one of those devices installed? Disclaimers which describe a whole host of problems that can occur with the device installed in the car, problems which the state will not pay to correct, even though their device is what caused the problems.
Personally, I have to think that more lives could be saved if improved safety equipment was installed on cars, cars were required to pass inspection on a yearly basis in all states, people were required to take driver’s training in order to get a license, and people were trained in how to properly maintain their vehicles, than by simply slapping a breathalyzer on every car.
It is a subject that is studied. See e.g., Driver Characteristics and Impairment at Various BACs. You can likely find more to read at this page.
I’d like to add that MADD is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of modern times.
urban1z and Blalron - what exactly has MADD done that you feel that way? Genuinely curious. I almost never hear MADD in the news, or pitted here like PETA, etc.
I also agree with what I think are their goals, such as reducing drunk driving through lower DUI limits and tougher enforcement, as well as their awareness campaigns that are helping stigmatize idiots who drive drunk.
Are they really so extreme that I need to be paying more attention to what they do?
rexnervous - MADD was a big factor in the federal government’s decision to blackmail states into raising their drinking ages.