A Breathalyzer in Every Car?

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

for those libertarians among us who wince at the idea of being required to wear a ski helmet on the slopes, MADD's latest push to expand the use of mandatory breathalyzers to anyone convicted of a DUI (instead of just for habitual DUI offenders) must be a scary thought.

follow this link for the article.

the article mentions that some groups fear a slippery slope leading to all cars having breathalyzers. personally, i'm for mandatory breathalyzers for ALL drivers. you'd think quite a few lives would be saved....also, there's the economic impact to think about: "MADD estimates that drunk driving now accounts for 18% of the nation's auto-insurance bill and 20% of all emergency-room costs that are never reimbursed, as well as 16% of all probation costs and 6% of all jail cells used in the U.S."

i don't buy the argument of "you might have one too many at the baseball game and find you can't drive".....that's the whole point!! if the worry is that the blood alcohol level is too low for mandatory breathalyzers, then raise it a little. why have B.A.C. rules if they're not to be applied? also, isn't it a little late to require breathalyzers only for those people who are convicted of DUIs? wouldn't some of them have already caused injury or death?

 

[deadheadskier]

No issues here.

 

[Glenn]

Lame.

MADD was a decent organization when it started out. However, it's now the modern day equivalent of the "temperance movement."

 

[deadheadskier]

The way I see it, those who don't drive over the limit have nothing to worry about. It could potentially save thousands of lives a year and lower insurance costs for everyone.

 

[Glenn]

It's more of the "thought that counts" for me.

Whenever I ride my quad, I use my brain bucket. If I had a street bike, I'd do the same. But I don't think that anyone should be mandated to wear one. Same with seatbelts. I always wear mine; but I think the law is stupid. It doesn't save lives, it generates revenue.

IMHO people. Not trying to start debate.

 

[deadheadskier]

haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:


You don't think seat belts save lives?

 

[snoseek]

I don't want to minimize the effects of alcohol but I'm pretty sure at just over the legal limit most of us are safer drivers than people that are fucking with their cells, or stuffing their faces with a number five.


With that said I wouldn't mind at all, but who would pay for this? is it expensive?

 

[thorski]

The way I see it, those who don't drive over the limit have nothing to worry about. It could potentially save thousands of lives a year and lower insurance costs for everyone.

Would you feel the same way if police had a tool that would let them know if someone had been smoking something funny?

 

[Riverskier]

haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:


You don't think seat belts save lives?

Clearly seatbelts save lives, but personally I don't need the government trying to save me from myself. In my opinion, government should only intervene in our lives and decisions to protect ourselves from each other. Therefore, I am against seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc.

In past discussions I was not opposed to ski areas requiring helmet use. Private businesses are an entirely different story in my opinion, and should be able to run their organizations as they see fit.

 

[mondeo]

haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:


You don't think seat belts save lives?

I don't care that seat belts save lives. I don't need to be told how to live my life.

I wear a seat belt.
When I buy a motorcycle, I'll wear a helmet.
I wear helmets skiing (except for spring) and biking.

But laws forcing that stuff on me are BS. It's my life, should be my decision. Worried about the insurance costs? Free up the insurance companies to put in seatbelt/helmet clauses, so you don't get the same benefits without or something like that.

DUIs are greyer areas, I'd personally like to see fewer driving laws but get cops to enforce the right ones more. There are people that are more capable with a BAC at 0.08 than others with no alcohol. Why doesn't the incompetent get ticketed/jailed/stigmatized for being a crappy driver while the guy just over the limit is still competent?

Drinking and driving's another one that doesn't make sense. Who cares if I have a beer while driving? If it's my first of the evening, it's not illegal for me to drive before or after the beer, so why during?

Less government nannying, just make people live with the consequences of their own decisions. The real problem is that no one wants to take responsibility for the effects of their actions, so no one thinks about said effects before they act.

 

[Riverskier]

I don't care that seat belts save lives. I don't need to be told how to live my life.

I wear a seat belt.
When I buy a motorcycle, I'll wear a helmet.
I wear helmets skiing (except for spring) and biking.

But laws forcing that stuff on me are BS. It's my life, should be my decision. Worried about the insurance costs? Free up the insurance companies to put in seatbelt/helmet clauses, so you don't get the same benefits without or something like that.

DUIs are greyer areas, I'd personally like to see fewer driving laws but get cops to enforce the right ones more. There are people that are more capable with a BAC at 0.08 than others with no alcohol. Why doesn't the incompetent get ticketed/jailed/stigmatized for being a crappy driver while the guy just over the limit is still competent?

Drinking and driving's another one that doesn't make sense. Who cares if I have a beer while driving? If it's my first of the evening, it's not illegal for me to drive before or after the beer, so why during?

Less government nannying, just make people live with the consequences of their own decisions. The real problem is that no one wants to take responsibility for the effects of their actions, so no one thinks about said effects before they act.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[snoseek]

Couldn't agree more!

Yeah thread over!

 

[deadheadskier]

Would you feel the same way if police had a tool that would let them know if someone had been smoking something funny?

absolutely



and to be honest, I can see the argument others are making about not wanting the government creating laws to save people from themselves in regards to seat belts, helmets, etc. The drinking and driving thing is a bit different. I could give a crap if anyone decides to get three sheets to the wind and drive off the road into a tree killing themselves. I've had a few friends die while drunk driving. I was sad when happened, miss them to this day, but in the end didn't feel all that sorry for them as they were being stupid.

However, the fact that drunk drivers kill thousands of people other than themselves is the issue here. What is proposed is to help prevent that.

And I'm sorry, as a former pro at drunk driving during my ski bum days, even though I agree that even at double the limit I was probably a better driver than a lot of sober drivers; that argument is total crap none the less. Why? Anyone who has ever gotten drunk knows that the time between having a functioning healthy buzz to being smashed can sneak up on you real fast. I was lucky plenty of times, but eventually smartened up before something catastrophic happened to me or someone else.

As for how it's funded? Put additional fines on top of those already given drunk drivers to be funneled directly to the manufacturers of the device.

What is proposed in my eyes is far more about public safety than it is about your own individual safety.

 

[Geoff]

DUIs are greyer areas, I'd personally like to see fewer driving laws but get cops to enforce the right ones more. There are people that are more capable with a BAC at 0.08 than others with no alcohol. Why doesn't the incompetent get ticketed/jailed/stigmatized for being a crappy driver while the guy just over the limit is still competent?

Drinking and driving's another one that doesn't make sense. Who cares if I have a beer while driving? If it's my first of the evening, it's not illegal for me to drive before or after the beer, so why during?

0.08 is pretty draconian. I have a breathalzyer in my glove compartment. 3 pints of Long Trail Ale in 90 minutes puts me over. I'm in no way impared at 0.08. Since there's a State Police DUI gauntlet on the Killington Access Road, I can't risk being a convicted felon by driving over the limit. In Vermont, the law reads "0.08; or driving while intoxicated". The state police can still arrest you even if you're under 0.08 and you have to shell out large dollars to a criminal lawyer to defend yourself on a felony DUI charge.

 

[snoseek]

absolutely




As for how it's funded? Put additional fines on top of those already given drunk drivers to be funneled directly to the manufacturers of the device.

This sounds perfectly fine to me, it would save a lot of lives and money. I still want laws enforced to people distracted on their cell ect.....

 

[Riverskier]

absolutely



and to be honest, I can see the argument others are making about not wanting the government creating laws to save people from themselves in regards to seat belts, helmets, etc. The drinking and driving thing is a bit different. I could give a crap if anyone decides to get three sheets to the wind and drive off the road into a tree killing themselves. I've had a few friends die while drunk driving. I was sad when happened, miss them to this day, but in the end didn't feel all that sorry for them as they were being stupid.

However, the fact that drunk drivers kill thousands of people other than themselves is the issue here. What is proposed is to help prevent that.

And I'm sorry, as a former pro at drunk driving during my ski bum days, even though I agree that even at double the limit I was probably a better driver than a lot of sober drivers; that argument is total crap none the less. Why? Anyone who has ever gotten drunk knows that the time between having a functioning healthy buzz to being smashed can sneak up on you real fast. I was lucky plenty of times, but eventually smartened up before something catastrophic happened to me or someone else.

As for how it's funded? Put additional fines on top of those already given drunk drivers to be funneled directly to the manufacturers of the device.

What is proposed in my eyes is far more about public safety than it is about your own individual safety.

I agree with the distinction between this and seatbelt or helmet laws, and that drunk driving poses a public safety risk. However, this sounds like guilty until proven innocent, which in my opinion really infringes on our fundamental rights. Yes, this may save lives, but where does it stop? Allowing police to randomly search cars could potentially save lives by getting drugs and guns off the streets, right? Raising taxes on cigarettes does make some smokers quit, so should we raise the tax to $20 a pack? I think not! Enough already.

 

[deadheadskier]

Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?

It's a privilege.

Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about. What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.

 

[deadheadskier]

I guess my overall feeling is that something like this: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=261727&ac=PHnws

wouldn't have happened with such a device in place. I'm willing to give up a bit of personal 'freedom' for something like that. If your opinion differs, so be it.

 

[bigbog]

with alcohol & driving...

Agree with a lot previous, but with driving added to alcohol it's not ourselves that big brother is potentially saving, it's everyone else...including people's children out riding a bike.
I think the one DUI is a good starting point, but would be an easier call IF, as mondeo said....DUIs were strictly enforced, but even as done...lots of fatalities are from the repeats...which WOULD then be prevented.
I think the thought process might be...it's impossible to totally prevent the 1st time DUI, but leave that to the driver's judgement & responsibility...after the driver fails the 1st..then Gov't takes over. It's not perfect, but then what enforcement is?

 

[Marc]

I, for one, welcome our new alcohol detector overlords.