General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMandatory Breathalyzers Could Soon Be In Every Car If Feds Have Their Way
Some have suggested a system similar to Interlock, the breath system that people are required to install in their cars after they get a DUI. The device prevents the vehicle from starting unless the driver is able to breathe into the device to prove they are not under the influence of alcohol. However, less complicated equipment is being devised, like sensors that test the alcohol level in the breath of the driver as they sit in the driver’s seat or a touch system that would detect alcohol levels through the skin.
This technology will not just be used for DUI cases, though. The NHTSA is actually hoping to implement this in every vehicle on the road.
an effort is underway to develop advanced invehicle technologies that could be fitted in vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood alcohol concentration non-invasively.
They are calling this technology “non-invasive” but it tests the content of your blood every time you get into your vehicle, which by its very nature is extremely invasive.
http://theantimedia.org/mandatory-breathalyzers-could-soon-be-in-every-car-if-feds-have-their-way/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)My brother in law of 40 years was just killed by a drunk driver. Hit head on killed instantly. A tough call for me now.
Suich
(10,642 posts)Condolences on your loss, leftofcool!
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It feels oppressive. but then when I think of 10,000 people a year dying, 1500 of them children...
the right in this case, seems to be the right to drive drunk.
When I was a stupid young person, I did it on a number of occasions.....when I look back I am so thankful that there were no tragic consequences.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)end of discussion.
Not that people care much about the 4th Amendment these days.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)if you can't drive well enough to pass a driving test it is illegal for you to drive on the roads
This is just another way to determine whether or not you are capable of navigating the roads safely.
GoneOffShore
(17,337 posts)It's authoritarian and totalitarian.
Perfect for fans of the Soviet era.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)are not drunk?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What in this context would prevent the sober from driving? That I believe, would be the obvious answer to your most clever query....
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)when the police demand to search their homes without a warrant.
Volaris
(10,266 posts)But its called DADSS...
How very 'Fatherland' of them.
Do I need to keep going?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)One can only imagine a life so simple when it lacks the ability to realize both context and nuance, compelling us to jump straight from breathalyzers to gulags.
From the outside, it's bemusing. From the inside though...? I can only admire from afar both your simplicity and your intractable dogma.
GoneOffShore
(17,337 posts)And are a great fan of the so called "Patriot Act".
And just love to go through the TSA pat down.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I just can't wait to laugh when cities cry about lower funds do to loss of all the money they get from DUIs. Oh they will squeal about it and then raise other things to cover the loss.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)isn't any search of a car that's been stopped ALSO fully legal no matter if you give permission or not?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it disables functionality.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)One of several DUers who is an attorney is downthread. We could ask him. (jberryhill)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . and cannot be used to place the person tested in any legal jeopardy, but are simply used to determine whether or not to permit the car to start, it's hard to see how that would be a violation of the Constitution, especially since there is no constitutional right to drive a car in the first place.
adigal
(7,581 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)My brother in law was just killed by someone looking at their cellphone while they ran a red light. It's just not fair. Sorry for your loss. Sorry for my family's loss too.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)No one should be driving under the influence anyway.
randys1
(16,286 posts)we wont have to listen to that bullshit about cars killing people.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)While we're at it we can make all citizens file travel itineraries for all of their movements, i.e. school, place of employment, meetings with acquaintances, etc. Then, when coupled with electronic monitoring bracelets to track their movements we can make sure nobody will ever be any place they don't belong doing things they shouldn't be doing. Anyone found to be at a location not previously registered on their itinerary would face stiff penalties.
We can have a perfectly safe society for all citizens to "enjoy." We could end crimes since those obviously have to be committed in secret but we could also greatly reduce things like marital infidelity and monitor people who spend too much time with undesirable dissident groups.
Obviously only people of low intent with something to hide would balk at such a suggestion.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm not sure the author understands the meaning of the word "invasive".
It has a physical meaning. If you have to breath into a tube inserted into your mouth, that is "invasive". If something is monitoring your breath externally, that is "non-invasive" - i.e. nothing enters your body.
Words have meanings.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,315 posts)Nosy, meddling, meddlesome, protruding, prying, interfering.
Maybe not the best word but I see the point of throwing their medical use back in their face with same word used in the non medical sense.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Then the context indicates the clinical meaning of the word. The distinction being made here is between an inserted tube into a bodily orifice and something which does not involve any bodily insertion. It is utterly clear what is meant by the distinction and equally clear the author does not understand the usage in context.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Requiring a safety interlock on car ignitions is not the government conducting a search of your person.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I know drivers licenses state that refusal to take a sobriety test can result in revocation but generally the police need a reason to require the test in the first place.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Full stop.
There is nothing being collected by any government agency for the purpose of a criminal investigation or prosecution.
This is a safety interlock on a piece of equipment wholly owned by the individual.
There are several manufacturers who include systems in their cars which detect drowsiness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection
No, the government can't come around and roust you to find out if you are sleeping, but your car certainly can.
My goodness, if this is a "4th Amendment violation" then a self-driving car must be a full custodial arrest!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Acting by proxy doesn't diminish the fact the government is the proximate cause. I would think (I'm not so sure these days) that government could not require private entities to infringe upon individual rights by threatening the viability of the private entity or its officers and then claim that the government is not the reason the rights of private citizens have been infringed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...and throwing in out-of-context phrases like "proximate cause" doesn't make it any more sensible an argument.
The damned airbags already infringe your God-given right to smash your head into the steering wheel in a collision, if that's what you want to do.
But the government is not conducting a search of your person here. You remain secure in your person and personal effects, regardless of whether you can start your car. The result of the test is not being beamed to some secret facility where the government even knows you started your car. No "private entity" is searching you either. You own the car.
Should the technology become reliable, then what's going to happen initially is that you are going to have the choice between having it in your car, and getting a massive reduction in your insurance premium, and not having it, and being in the risk pool with people who want to drive drunk. The market will sort that out right quick.
Lemme take a stab at a wild-ass guess here.... Motorcycle helmet laws - they're unconstitutional too, right?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How can you say this when a breathalyzer requires probable cause? A cop cannot force someone to submit to a breathalyzer without probable cause -- nor can they compel a third party to do so on their behalf.
If I own the car am I allowed to disable the device?
This sounds more like an appeal to bad law than sound judgment.
"Hey, look; we already got stupid laws on the books. What's a few more thousand -- amirite?"
Next Up: Police deploy snipers to enforce anti-suicide laws
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Easily, there is nobody conducting a search of you other than yourself.
"A cop cannot force someone to submit to a breathalyzer without probable cause -- nor can they compel a third party to do so on their behalf."
The second part of which would be vaguely interesting if the results of the test were being reported back to the cops.
"If I own the car am I allowed to disable the device?"
How about the horn, the lights, the airbags, the seat belts, or any other piece of required equipment?
I see that you completely ignored my mention of how these things generally proceed. Basically, if such a reliable technology were to be developed, it is unlikely that it would be mandated, but would become subject to strong market forces.
But, yes, okay, you think helmet laws are "stupid" too. I await the decision that will invalid them with such fine Constitutional scholarship.
If you want to argue it is "stupid" that's fine. There may be any number of reasons why it is "stupid" or otherwise undesirable.
But if you want to make a Constitutional argument of some kind, it does not boil down to "stupid laws are unconstitutional." I deal with stupid laws every damned day. That's generally and completely unrelated to whether they are Constitutional.
I didn't ask you whether helmet laws are stupid. I asked you whether, in your opinion, the government requiring you to wear a big hat in order to ride a motorcyle was Constitutional. It's something of a diagnostic question on my part to understand whether it is worth discussing the Constitutionality of such an idea with you. Because that one has been run up the flagpole to the highest court of 25 states and determined to be Constitutional each time.
Now, sure, maybe they got it wrong 25 times. But there is a big difference between having an opinion, and having one that you have a reasonable prospect of convincing a court to agree with.
You also seem to believe suicide is illegal. It is not. Assisting others to commit suicide is illegal in many states with a few limited exceptions (e.g. Oregon), and the last time I researched that issue, years ago, there were a few states that had laws relating to attempting suicide (and a few more which have laws relating to involuntary commitment of those who do). But there is no state in which suicide is illegal.
But, no, the hypothetical proposition that the operation of a piece of equipment you own and operate in the privacy of your own driveway is a 4th Amendment violation, even if it is a mandated piece of safety equipment, is not going to fly as a Constitutional argument.
A more salient example would be that the government has no right to sample the air inside my house. The government does have the right to mandate that I install smoke detectors in it.
24 states have laws relating to residential smoke detectors. Is that also a Constitutional violation?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A feature I do not want was mandated to be placed on my car without my permission and at my expense but I am not allowed to disable the device or operate the vehicle without the government mandated device.
"I" am not the one searching me.
Does the engine become disabled if any of those devices fail to operate or are not present?
That's not a mandate; that's the market.
What if you're not allowed to enter through the doors if the detectors are inoperative or malfunctioning?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What difference does it make what the smoke detectors do?
The question on the table is whether the government can mandate a safety device to conduct what would otherwise be a 4th Amendment search.
I pointed out that sampling the air in your apartment would definitely require a warrant, if the government were to send someone around to do it. There is no question that would be a 4th Amendment search.
Nonetheless, there are mandatory smoke detector laws in many states and localities. Those smoke detectors, mandated by the government, are sniffing the air in your apartment or home 24 hours a day.
You are now asking about whether the detectors do something else. That is irrelevant to the 4th Amendment analysis. You weren't happy when I pointed out that the hypothetical car alcohol detector wasn't reporting anything to the police.
You are either subject to an unconstitutional search by a mandated residential smoke detector or you are not. The 4th Amendment question begins and ends with the search, not with what is done after the search.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It makes all the difference because the device would be depriving the property owner of the right to use their property. Calling it a "safety device" does not diminish the fact that the rightful owner was denied the right to be secure in their person, papers and personal effects from an unreasonable intrusion by a mandate imposed at their expense, without their consent, without probable cause or due process and with no means to appeal prior to harm being inflicted.
This may sound weird but I'll hazard a guess that most states have mandatory smoke detector laws for rental properties but a significant percentage of those properties have inoperative smoke detectors because the battery wore out and the tenants declined to inform the landlord if not outright disabled the device themselves due to the incessant chirping.
The only reason smoke detector mandates are tolerated is because they are seen as not being overly troublesome. If your smoke detector analogy were to hold form those tenants would be deprived of residency by an automatic lock-out feature. Even if the technology were plausible I'd wager that were it employed -- whether by market or by mandate -- the pushback from the unwashed masses would be akin to what we are seeing in this thread -- and not just from malcontents such as myself.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)
xmas74
(29,671 posts)Everyone must stop, no matter if there is reasonable suspicion or not.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)probable cause.
xmas74
(29,671 posts)I just hate checkpoints.The officers working them seem to do their damnedest to make you feel like you've done something wrong, even when you haven't. That's because they want you to screw up.
I used to work for a police department. The officers working checkpoint on a Friday would make bets with the ones working it on Saturday over who made the most arrests. It was usually a small wager or working an extra day for the winners. They were always so damn smug.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I've never been treated rudely...only politeness and respect.
One time I didn't have my current sticker on my plate (had not come in mail yet), and they smiled and let me through since it was only a couple of days out of date.
I always treat them with politeness and respect too, so that may have something to do with it.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Ive done a uturn to avoid DUI checkpoints. They are not allowed to pursue or stop be on the basis of a legal u turn.
I never drink, I just think the checkpoints are bullshit, so i avoid them.
xmas74
(29,671 posts)A department I worked for years ago used to do multiple checkpoints and always had one in an area where u-turns were not allowed and there was no place to turn. In other words, you were stuck driving through.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But, there is a world of difference between someone else testing your sobriety and doing so yourself with a piece of equipment you own.
xmas74
(29,671 posts)I knew you'd know out of most of the posters here.
It's interesting, either way. Do I like it-no, I don't. I just don't know if it can be stopped from eventually being legal. Then again, I don't have the background to know whether or not it's constitutional.
Stinky The Clown
(67,764 posts)This would cover every car and every driver. No singling out. No discrimination.
Good.
adigal
(7,581 posts)I used to drink but gave it up five years ago. So why should I have my blood monitored?? This is a BS idea.
Stinky The Clown
(67,764 posts)But not every drinker is on that same track. Too many drunk drivers. Too much carnage. I don't think having everyone monitored in their cars is too much to ask.
They're not even calling for the system where you have to breathe into it before the car will start. They're talking about a passive system.
By the way, I also favor devices to render your cell phone's texting/emailing/etc. capabilities inoperative when you're driving. A system that can read your cell phone and stop it while allowing other cell phones in the car to function.
Drunk and distracted driving prevention is NOT too much to ask.
And yeah, I'm a liberal.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . A device is merely making a determination, based on a measurement, as to whether or not the car will be able to start. Provided the information is not being transmitted to any government, or private monitoring, entity, then it really cannot be called "monitoring."
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)This is a start.
I expect the future will bring requirements to monitor your (and your passenger's) cholesterol levels, body mass index, fat content of your groceries and what ever else our benevolent rulers decree. What do people have to hide?
With the advent of self driving cars, it will then drive you to your nearest reeducation camp, where you will be killed.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)To prevent people from driving while sleep deprived, texting and driving, talking om the phone while driving, putting on makeup while driving, eating and drinking while driving, reading while driving, and my all time favorite -- personally witnessed -- changing their baby's diaper while driving.
All of these kill people, and -- taken together -- probably kill more people than drunk drivers.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)this is another Nanny State bad idea.
Diabetes, low-carb diets, asthma, even reflux can lead to false positives.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)My nephew blew a 2% BA at a house party. Yes, 2%. This was on an a calibrated, police department Breathalyzer. The unit had been in the trunk of the officer's car and my nephew was the first one tested. Had he been charged with something other than consumption by a minor, it would have be easy to get it thrown out for the obvious inaccurate "dead or on the way" reading.
The first case of people getting frostbite or freezing to death because their car would not start to a false positive would tank this concept in a hurry.
dembotoz
(16,785 posts)Imagine that happening in colder than hell northern state being bent over trying to unlock ur ignition at 6am in the morning when u r late 4 work..
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)...I expect to see Truthseekers and LOLcats. 
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...yearly testing no doubt. Oh good, more money to keep you enslaved and working.
And everyone's tripping over themselves to line up for it. LOL.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
get the red out
(13,460 posts)When their car doesn't start, public intoxication you know, then off to jail and an expensive treatment center. I want drunk drivers off the roads but I also don't want money made by taking advantage of people, especially if they have a system breakdown.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)even if you're not driving at all, haven't driven, and don't intend to drive. Simply being in a car is enough, regardless of whether the car has actually moved. In those states, don't sleep it off in the backseat, or you'll be banged up just the same as if you were driving.
xmas74
(29,671 posts)who had a night of drinking, had the car keys in hand, unlocked his car door, sat down in driver's seat, reclined it and passed out. He was arrested because he had his keys out and was in the driver's seat, which was perceived as intending to drive while intoxicated.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)not "Perceived Intention to Drive While Intoxicated". Drunk people in cars that aren't moving are no danger to anyone and locking them up doesn't make the roads one bit safer. If they start the car and begin to drive, arrest away.
I can even see the cops taking the keys from the drunk and leaving a note to pick them up at the station after the drunk has sobered up, but arrest and prosecution in such circumstances is wrong.
I also don't agree with any open container laws. Either a driver's blood alcohol level is above "x" and he or she is legally drunk, or it isn't and the driver should be allowed to go about his or her business.
xmas74
(29,671 posts)and his name was all over the local newspapers.
He left the district at the end of the semester.
olddots
(10,237 posts)generally by a disgruntled employee .
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I am shocked to see people actually support this here.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)And I worked as a Substance Abuse Counselor for years.
During which time I learned that a determined alcoholic WILL find a way to drive
and a determined lawyer WILL find a way to have charges dismissed/reduced.
Police Breathalyzer calibration challenges is one oft used technique.
I also predict that once ETOH is tested in cars, cannabis and other drugs will also be tested.
Out of the millions of drivers on the road, a small % will have some alcohol in them, yet ALL drivers will have to pas a breathalyzer every time they get in the car.
and, with car computers being so ubiquitous, I am sure the results will be filed somewhere.
On everyone.
For insurance purposes.
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)And police could use it to track when and where you are driving your car - just as an example.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There are plenty of authoritarians here. I'm not surprised at all. They were on full display in proclaiming Snowden a traitor and defending Clapper and the NSA lying to Congress and spying on everyone domestically.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If we really want to technologically solve the problem of drunk driving once and for all, driverless cars will do it.
Hell, back when I was drinking and spending a fortune on cab fare I would have loved to have had a car I could have told "home, James" and it would take me as I zonked in the back seat.
Now let's sit back and see if all the people rushing to embrace the mandatory in-car breathalyzer freak out at the idea of computers "taking away" their right to drive.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I love the idea of driverless cars for this reason and because of boring highway drives. I'm not sure how it would work in practice, but it is a nice idea.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'd vote against anyone who suggested it. If it malfunctions, do I not get to drive my car? Do I need it towed? What if there is an emergency and I need to get somewhere?
Nope.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)but the fact that nominally liberal people are ok with this is fucking terrifying.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Now I understand why Carlin said what he did about the "they" will get it all, and felt so pessimistic.
So much of what I used to consider liberal in the 70's is now considered radical and not PC these days, esp. in areas of privacy.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Liberals do not support such Totalitarianism. I shouldn't be subject to monitoring when just doing ordinary tasks of life. That some on fucking DU actually admit to supporting this is 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)i.e. Self-Driving cars are WRONG and TERRIBLE
but a car that shuts itself down because it thinks you have been drinking is just great.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ok depending on how it is implemented
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)your car from starting, effectively making you stuck wherever you are, the potential for real trouble increases exponentially.
I can envision false positives due to everything from hand sanitizer to driving home a drunk buddy or spouse in the passenger seat.
I had a friend killed by a drunk driver, I'm all for keeping drunks off the road-- but it's also worth noting that stuff like texting and driving is starting to seriously compete with inebriation in terms of road carnage. I don't see how this could reasonably be implemented if it was mandatory, and if it's voluntary I don't see a lot of people paying extra for it, unless they were getting a car, say, for their teenager (which I could see might be a legitimate use case scenario, mind you)
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)Allow the driver to leave?
What if I've had half a glass of wine and breadsticks at a restaurant and need to leave behind a date that threatened me?
People who haven't been convicted of DUI shouldn't have to pay for this. This is a presumption of guilt.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Built-In Car Breathalyzers Have Been a Good Idea for Years. They’re Still Not Ready.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/11/_driver_alcohol_detection_system_from_national_highway_traffic_safety_administration.html
Soon, Cars May Take Away the Keys of a Drunken Driver
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/business/technology-to-prevent-drunken-driving-could-soon-come-in-new-cars.html?_r=0
Any way you look at it, 10,000 deaths and many more disabled annually is not exactly something to be ignored. I'm not ok with that much death and destruction.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)11. Will DADSS technology be installed in every new car and truck?
No, the system will not be mandated. Consumers will have the choice whether or not they want to purchase it as a safety option in new vehicles. The DADSS program was authorized and funded as a research program to advance the state of alcohol detection technology. Congress did not mandate the use of any technology in the authorization. Instead, the authorization states that when the program has been completed, automakers will engage in further product development and integration of the technology into motor vehicles if they choose. They will be able to offer the system voluntarily in new cars the way they do other advanced vehicle technology features, such as lane departure warnings or automatic breaking.
http://dadss.org/faq/
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I haven't had a drink in over a decade, but I tell you what, I slap some hand sanitizer on my kids after they've stuck their hands in some nasty goop, and the car smells like someone just pounded a fifth of vodka, for several minutes.
What I don't understand is why people get so fucking gooey over this, but have neo-luddite meltdowns over the idea of self-driving cars, which would solve the problem for good AND be safer in general (because texting while driving is just as dangerous as being drunk, and the numbers on that shit are only going up) ... why is that, I wonder?
Oh, I know why. Because one 'solution' involves controlling other peoples' lives with little upside for them, and the other might actually make peoples lives immeasurably better--- and as such it is inherently suspect.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)it is a crime to attempt to drive while over the limit.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)As an ex-drunk who very fortunately never hurt anyone but drove drunk.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Gets all up in our business?
Nothing, I say. 
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And it's funny how the same stripe of 'control everything' crowd is for it.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Silly libertarians who value privacy and being considered innocent until proven guilty! For shame!
Don't you see we need to resort to such drastic measures for PUBLIC SAFETY and the COMMON GOOD?
(I notice all the usual authoritarian gun-control fanatics are chiming in for this shit too. Go figure. 
)
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)And if they all had it, I'd just disable it. Easy to do for a mechanical engineer.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)housekeepers, craftsmen, and many many others who are in contact with alcohol frequently need not worry. They would be a small sampling of those who could no longer have a car.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)All those alcohol swabs for testing and injections.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If so there would be a whole bunch of cases you could point to where this was a thing.
Having some blood alcohol count as a result of their work, sure, not a .08
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Passive systems would be even worse. Skin contact was one proposed system. In that diabetics would often fail because of blood sugar levels and hand sanitizer use would fail the system. And then there is the whole wearing gloves thing. You don't grab the wheel in Arizona in summer or Maine in winter with bare hands.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)or the link mentioning passive systems where alcohol could be detected by means other than breathalyzers. I guess I'll have to read better next time.
we can do it
(12,173 posts) Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)and mandating their use are two different topics. I would be opposed to both. If I ever bought a car with such a device, I would remove or dismantle it entirely.
jmowreader
(50,529 posts)You know who's really going to push this shit tho? Insurance companies. They've already got the "leash up your ass" thing that plugs into your OBD2 connector. I figure if they ever get this working, the insurance companies will demand you install a Leash Up Your Ass, a Drunk Detecting Steering Wheel and a GPS tracker if you ever hope to see insurance coverage again.
People gasp about how much freedom the government is taking away; compared to the private sector, the government is a pack of amateurs.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)get the red out
(13,460 posts)People have trouble seeing through this stuff for some reason.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)provide the goods and services without the interfering technology in order to capitalize on the demand to be free of it.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)duct tape?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)I have to admit, that made me laugh!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But I don't know about every single car. It seems like that violates the 4th amendment. You're being searched, in a way, every time you drive, whether there's reasonable suspcion you could be drunk or not. If you've been caught drunk driving before, then there's reasonable suspicion it could happen again.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)Once you break the law fine, all for it; but guilty until proven innocent is scary. And yes I am all for getting intoxicated drivers off the road, but people who frequently drink and drive would find a mechanic who could shut that thing off for a price, let this gadget go in all cars and there will be people who make a business of shutting it off.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Like 3 point seat belts or 3rd brake lights-
If they try to pull this shit and say it is in , 2020-
Expect new car sales to plummet and your 2014 piece of shit Kia Rio or 2010 Ford Focus may just double in value LOL-
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why the government can deny you a driver's license.
Also, the government isn't conducting the search - the system refuses to start the car, it doesn't send a report to the government.
I don't like the idea of the system, but that is grounded more in not believing it would function properly in the real world.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)For a sensor system, what if I want to wear gloves.
It gets to be -15 where I live. Im not driving without gloves.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Guilty until proven innocent.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)by someone with too much alcohol in their system.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)It's not fair in anyway.
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You spend all this time and money developing this technology and some hacker will defeat it in a few hours and the instructions will be on the internet for all to find.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)As a reason to greatly increase the sentence they would have to serve for any DUI related crimes.
ProfessorGAC
(64,861 posts). . .if all i did was use a blood pressure cuff squeeze ball and blew air into it? Taking body temperature? That just makes it even more invasive.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)I suspect older cars will become increasingly popular and lot's of people will find work keeping them running. Although it might give me the motivation to build something both Unique and Fun to Drive,
dembotoz
(16,785 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I don't care how bad a problem is we don't just give up rights like this.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If you get in your car, and you blow a .08 or higher into the meter, your car will not start. There is no record of the results stored anywhere in the system. Just simply, your car will not start.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)had one for several months and the damn thing didn't work half the time. He would blow into it until he was blue in the face and was repeatedly told he wasn't human -- not kidding. Then every few miles while driving he would again have to blow. Incredibly distracting and potentially hazardous.
I am all for tough penaties for drunk drivers. Take licenses away. Heavy fines. Mandatory classes. Jail time. But please, unless the technology is vastly improved, drivers should never have to be subjected to those horrible breathalyzers.
lame54
(35,267 posts)every car in the bar parking lot will be left running
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... to such a concept in this thread. WTF? I do agree that there are issues associated with how to implement it, anecdotal speculation of how it could -in rare instances - cause unintended problems, recording the info, criminal penalties, etc... But to reject it out of some fear that it invades your privacy right to drink and drive if you feel you're capable of doing so? Really? You want to know how many of the drunk driving accident cases I've been involved in where the drunk driver said "I thought I could handle it"?
If you're opposed to this, you've never had to work with victims of drunk driving and seen the carnage it causes up close and personal. It's devastating. And, for some reason, it seems like the drunk driver usually survives the impact - the innocents in the other car always end up maimed or dead. That is simply unacceptable when technology can prevent it.
I am actually quite opposed to Big Brother. I'm even more opposed to Big Corporation (kind of my pet Dem issue) - but in this case the societal benefit outweighs the inconvenience.
You have no absolute right, constitutional or otherwise, to pilot a 4,000 pound steel contraption up and down the public roadways the rest of us are also using. None. It's a conditional right at best. And the first condition is that you can do it safely.
You have to take a test to get a license to drive. You can't drive if you don't take and pass the test. This is an extension of that concept.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)personally I think that's a far superior idea for a lot of reasons. And safer.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... further away from that being an available technology in a mainstream way. My dad - engineering degree in 1940 - use to describe driverless cars as the next big thing when I was learning to drive in the 70s. I'm glad he didn't buy stock in such a company.
Plus, many people - myself included - actually enjoy driving most of the time. Such driving enthusiasts wouldn't want to lose that, so I assume a driverless car could be manually overridden. If so - it might not effectively address the issue of a drunk driver who thought he/she was fine to drive.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not least of which are computers and GPS systems.
Driverless cars are actually pretty close to fruition. And I'm not quite sure why a driverless car that can't be overridden is any more intrusive than a breathalyzer that shuts down your ignition and can't be overridden.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... but it's still a ways off, and I see it as an expensive luxury option for a while before it becomes universally available.
And that was my point. A driverless car with no override option would be no different from a breathalyzer equipped car - agreed. But I would not want a driverless car without an override option because I like to drive. If it has an override option, then it's no longer effective as a drunk driving deterrent.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's probably the bottom line, with all this stuff.
I mean even those in-dash breathalyzers that courts mandate can be bypassed, with enough ingenuity (and drunks often have a strange reservioir of that stuff) ... I seem to remember at least one case of a chronic drunk driver who was arrested after it turned out she was bribing homeless people- presumably, sober ones- to blow into her interlock system so she could start her car.
And none of this technology is likely to be implemented on a wide mandatory basis, any time soon.
I just find it interesting that a certain subset of this place is eager to ecstatically embrace this, but also freaks out over driverless cars--- the only difference i can see being that driverless car tech, unlike a system that just shuts your car off, actually has the potential for some upsides for the individual user, as well as the public at large.
It's like a knee jerk authoritarian reflex.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... really only puts the rider at greater risk. DD puts everyone on or near the roadway at risk.
I can at least understand the helmet thing, though. I have not ridden motorcycles much in my life, but I get that riding without a helmet might be more "freeing", I suppose.
I do ride a trail bike. When I got my first one 25 years ago, I told the bike shop owner (sort of jokingly) that I wasn't sure I wanted a helmet because it just wasn't "cool". He said "sitting in a wheelchair and drooling on yourself is not very cool either". Good sales technique - I bought a helmet and have never ridden without it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I never drink, and I still think its a stupid idea, purely because there are issues with it. What if my passenger is drunk, and it detects that, and won't start my car, as well as many many other problems. Also recent mouthwash use will fail interlock breath test.
I agree with you that on a constitutional level this is allowed, but that doesn't mean I have to support it.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)And that in a nutshell what this is - an automatic presumption that you are a criminal and must be breathalyzed every time you drive a car.
I don't actually fear this technology because it has zero chance of succeeding. Passive technology for alcohol is so prone to false positives that the anger and horror stories will slam the first automaker like an avalanche and no one will offer the technology ever again after that. The tube system is so invasive and difficult to use that people will also reject it. Outside of the Authoritarian left extreme and the Fascist right extreme of society, this will go over like a fart in church to the rest of America.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)The site you linked to is yet another clickbait site, using exaggerated headlines to attract visitors to look at all the ads on that site. While this technology is under development, it's not likely that any sort of serious proposal to make it mandatory for all drivers would ever pass muster and become law. Very, very unlikely, indeed.
I did click your link, and saw dozens of ads, but very little information to indicate that this is being seriously considered. The blowback from any such implementation would come from all sides of the political spectrum and would be very unpopular with legislators. It's not happening.
It's just another example of sensational headlines used to attract gullible people to an ad-heavy website. It's full of "some have suggested" and other weasel-worded nonsense, with nothing to indicate that there is actually a threat of this actually happening.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
Of the 1,149 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2013, 200 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
Of the 200 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2013, over half (121) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.
In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.
I think this is a good attempt to deal with a huge pulbic safety problem caused by a lack of personal responsibility.
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)Yes, first time offenders are often involved in fatal crashes, but it is a good balance between safety and peoples' right to privacy.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)
MountainMama
(237 posts)I think the day is coming when you won't be able to have any alcohol in your system while driving. If something like this were implemented, it would be a good start to that end.
My husband will not drink at all, ever, if he's driving...not even one And that is smart. I will have one, but not very often.
I don't agree with this....but I think something like this is coming.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Alcoholics were not supposed to drink while taking Antabuse, but damned if I did not have client who could do it.
He eventually crashed into another car at 3 am, was sent to prison for a year, and complained because the guy he hit was also a DUI, so" it wasn't fair", etc
And a few years later ran off the road, drunk, and died.
3rd DUI is supposed to be a felony, but damned if I don't read in the paper EVERY week here that someone was picked up for what I happen to know is their
4th, 5th, 6th DUI.( small town, I know a lot of the names)
DUI checkpoints work to fill the court system coffers, but losing a license is no deterrent, I have found.
Like you, I see this coming.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I know, I know, if it saves one life....
The correlation between reducing the number of drunk drivers, and reducing fatal accidents isn't all that strong. There are driving patterns based upon previous citations, that show much greater correlation. I.e. bad drivers are the problem. Drunk bad drivers are a BIG problem.
You could probably stick one of these in every vehicle, and the fatal accident rate wouldn't drop at all. The fatal DUI rate might. One thing to understand is that the tired drunk is one of the biggest problems. A tired driver is a big problem, but 5 drinks in him and he's down right deadly. And the most dangerous drunks are probably the ones that will figure out how to get around this thing.
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)I shouldn't have to prove I'm sober every time I get in my car. I almost never drink, and when I do have a little bit of red wine, I don't drive anywhere.
In addition, I shouldn't have to pay for that extra equipment in the cost of a new car.
Finally, I think it is a slippery slope to the loss of privacy in areas we can't even conceive of yet.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)And "too much" drink to an alcoholic, who has adjusted nicely to a level that would make me fall down, is the amount that makes them pass out.
Downing a 6 pack i 2 hours and driving is "normal" for a lot of drinkers.
remember that the judgement center is the first to shut down when drinking.
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)What does that have to do with what I wrote?
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)With a law like this that would never happen.
Chemisse
(30,803 posts)We can't let fear allow us to be stripped of our privacy. I don't want an Orwellian world.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)We already have that and there are still too many drunk driving accidents.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)in their lifetimes -- either as a drunk or as a victim.
Drunk driving is a serious problem.
http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...who from. Who I email. What tv programs I watch and for how long. What I eat and how much. How much electricity I use and when I use it. Who I visit and where. What trips I take, what I charge...on..and on.
Now I have to blow into a tube, turn around and recite "Oh Toto, I'm not drunk"
Again, no big deal.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...very valid points. In my situation it's just another little tribulation.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)running?
Bettie
(16,076 posts)And I will literally never drive when I've had even one drink, but this is too far.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)shut down on ignition starts.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)We buried a friend of my son's last week and a classmate of my niece this past summer due to those lovely, lovely people who think they can multitask while hurtling down the freeway in what amounts to a loaded gun. Sorry, it can wait. Even for passengers. Hang out with the person you're with. You might find out you like it. (and yes, stay the f*ck off my lawn)
kairos12
(12,843 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)She lived two hours away, several towns over. We met at a state drama convention. She had the most beautiful bright red hair I had ever seen, and eyes that were green like cilantro, and the mix tapes we sent each other were almost exactly the same Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen songs. I asked her to the prom, and she said yes. On the way up, a drunk driver trying to pass a National Guard convoy went into the far lane (Mississippi highways were two lanes at that point: thank you Ray Maybus for finally fixing that).
They hit head on; she lived about until the ambulance got there; he broke a few ribs. I sat on my porch waiting in a tux for several hours until my kid sister told me there was a phone call for me.
Human drivers will not be a thing in 20 years. Until they are gone, I'm fine with insuring their sobriety.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,325 posts)I'm sure some politicians will be allowed to bypass this, as well as police, fire, ambulance, military vehicles.
Anyone who has to take someone to the hospital in a hurry at 3am could be frustrated by being a bit over the limit, especially if it results in the death of a loved one.
I would not support this violation of the fourth amendment. It is a warrantless search.