A Breathalyzer in every car?

[The Straight Story]

A Breathalyzer in every car?

MADD wants all cars owned by convicted drunk drivers to require built-in breathalyzers. The auto industry's on board but some worry car manufacturers are driving down a slippery slope. Dan Grech reports.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/11/20/AM200611208.html?refid=0

* Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock technologies, including efforts to require alcohol ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part of this effort will be working with judges, prosecutors and state driver’s license officials to stop the revolving door of repeat offenders;

* Exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel of international safety experts to assess the feasibility of a range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. These technologies must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, set at the legal BAC limit and unobtrusive to the sober driver; and


In addition to stronger enforcement and mandatory interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, MADD supports the development of new sensor technology already underway that allows a vehicle to recognize if a driver is drunk, and to stop the driver from operating that vehicle. The public is overwhelmingly supportive: by a 4 to 1 margin (58 percent to 16 percent), Americans support advances in smart vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.

http://www.madd.org/news/11286

[LeftCoast]

1. For being the supposed "land of the free" America is certainly a nanny state

MADD needs to just go away.

[GoneOffShore]

4. Oh boy.

I smell :popcorn:

Even though on some levels, I do agree with you.

[The Straight Story]

5. Next they will build em into beer mugs and bottles

With a little siren that goes off if you register too much.

[Crayson]

67. And Marihuanalyzers Methalyzers and ...

...
and Kokainalyzers
and Speedalyzers
and El-es-dee-alyzers

and what about
Testosteronalyzers (you're only allowed to drive a car if you had sex within the last week, else you're prone to drive like an idiot trying to impress girls)
and Brainalyzers in general because you might think bad things while driving.

instead of all the controls we should rather emphasize on making the people THINK before they do anything.
That would prevent sooo much.

But then again, thinking people is not really something any state would want...

[Vorta]

6. Finally, something we agree on.

I hope that doesn't ruin it for you.

[pnwmom]

20. "Madd needs to just go away." ???? I disagree.

I think they've done a lot of good.

[RC]

47. At one time they did. But they have crossed over to the loony side.

Even the person who started MADD doesn't agree with them anymore.
They are already trying to lower the intoxicated limit. .08% isn't enough yet.

[TheMightyFavog]

56. What like putting a gun to the heads of the states and ordering them...

To raise their drinking age to 21?

I say we should be like Europe. Lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 18.

[Sapphocrat]

65. Fuck MADD.

Any organization that exploits homophobia for its own gains can go fuck itself -- don't you agree, pnwmom?

Read:
http://metrog.com/interact/guest/060714_madd.html

[Vidar]

100. They started out well, but now it's just Carrie Nation all over again.

[MrSlayer]

2. Yeah it would be so hard to get someone else to blow into it.

I hate drunk drivers too but MADD is way out of it here.

[Mist]

15. Yeah, they need to shut down--they've made their points, but this is nuts! nt

[pnwmom]

28. Assuming they had someone else with them

and that that person wouldn't prefer to drive.

Just because it could be circumvented doesn't mean it couldn't be helpful. Your logic is a bit like saying that we shouldn't lock doors because someone might be able to pick them.

[MrSlayer]

44. Fair enough.

I just don't like the idea of this being forced upon people.

[pnwmom]

59. Maybe it depends on how close you've come to tragedy

based on a drunk driver. Close friends of ours almost lost a young child to one -- and the boy will never fully recover from his injuries.

I don't have much patience for people who seem to think it's their right to drive while inebriated. It was my friend's right not to have her car slammed into by a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road.

[MrSlayer]

93. I hate drunk drivers.

It's one of my pet peeves, it's one of the most irresponsible things you can do and the penalties should be much harsher for it. But I also think it's too easy to blow false positives and that a lot of people get busted who aren't really drunk. There has to be a better way. I just don't like the creeping fascism "big brother" aspect of this.

[pinniped]

46. That's where v2.0 comes in.

It will detect the breath of someone other than the registered drunk and initiate a shutdown of the car for a 24 hour period.

[Generic Brad]

53. And it should be hooked up to GPS satellite

The GPS locater could hook up to a database that has the specific locale's legal driving limit so there is no ambiguity. Technically it could be done. Is it the right thing to do? It also seems cost prohibitive from one angle, and from another the price is human life is incalculable.

[Crayson]

68. Everything that "could technically be done"...

... can technically be undone and cheated if the incentive is strong enough.

Like the prohibition of alcohol and so on.

[ComerPerro]

79. Thats not how they work, at all.

In addition to requiring an approved breath sample before the car can start, the device will require periodic samples as long as the engine is running. From what I understand, when the device requires a new sample, a tone sounds and the driver has something like 5 minutes to take time to pull over and blow again. If they don't do so within the time limit, the device does things like flash hazzard lights and honk and make alarm sounds and whatever else. Then it shuts the vehicle off.

[B Calm]

3. This is going too far!

[TheFarseer]

7. MADD can kiss my alchoholic ass

cars can still kill even if no one is drunk. Maybe we should just quit screwing around and ban cars. Then no one would die in a car wreck.

[pnwmom]

22. The risk of an accident is much higher if the driver is drunk.

I don't care how much you drink at home, but don't get near me if you're driving drunk.

http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=139732

Bernie Arseneau owns his own breathalyzer.

"I think, all too often, we make a judgment out on a barstool and say, 'Yeah, I'm OK to drive,'" said Arseneau. "And often times, you're not."

Arseneau also is Minnesota's state traffic engineer. He often sees deadly accidents up close.

"Sadly, about 35 - 40 percent of fatal crashes are related to alcohol in some way," he said.

[DaveinMD]

50. unreal

drunk driving is a major cause of death. All the research proves this conclusively. I'm 100 percent with MADD on this one. I believe anyone that kills someone while drunk driving should be convicted of 2nd degree murder. Because that is what it is. Murder.

[TheFarseer]

82. I wasn't being 100% serious, Jeez

What's 'unreal' is the fricking nanny state we've created.

[Crayson]

69. yup...

and there would be no child porn, if we banned photographs and computers.

[NC_Nurse]

8. If your child was dead, you might not feel that way.

It seems like so many drunk drivers are repeat offenders who finally kill someone after many arrests. I don't think this will
necessarily stop them, but I can understand people's frustration with it.
It's so senseless.

[alarimer]

71. Yes but this is going too far

Put them even in the cars of people who do not drink? Unfuckingbelievable.

[MazeRat7]

9. Yup the mothers have now officially "jumped the shark".... (n/t)

[lapfog_1]

10. Cheaper and easier

would be a simple numeric pad and a PIN number that has to be completely entered within X seconds of entering the first number.

But then, I think guns should have an "owner recognition system" built into them as well.

[RC]

48. Oh, goodie, another numeric password.

Just what the world needs.

[lapfog_1]

62. You want a convicted drunk driver on the same highway

who can't remember a PIN number. Besides, there are many cars that were on the market that offered the keypad door locks, I'm just suggesting a ignition keypad for convicted drunk drivers (which is what the start of this thread was suggesting a breathalyzer instead.

[RC]

63. When you have a dozen of so passwords with different rules,

some computer generated and they need to be changed or get changed on a regular basis, you don't need another one to start the car. Enough already.

[ComerPerro]

87. you have never seen a drunk frattie use an ATM, apparently

they know what to do to get what they need.

Even a 15 digit pin won't slow down an alcoholic who wants to drive.

[madmusic]

11. 4 to 1 margin (58 percent to 16 percent) does not equal 100%

Fuzzy math!

"I say “has had” because frankly the war on drunk driving isn’t going so well these days. Actually, it’s bogged down."

Translation, to maintain power, we have to kick it up a notch.

"A “first-time offender” probably isn’t a first-time drunk driver. In fact, MADD’s research shows the average “first offender” drives under the influence 88 times before he’s ever pulled over."

Translation, this will only do 1/88th of what we want it to do, but we can't sell the public on putting it in every car - your car, at your expense - YET.

EDIT: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/11/21/couricandco/entry2203580.shtml

[Warpy]

12. We had one old geezer with multiple DUIs arrested here

when a cop spotted him in a bar's parking lot having his five year old grandson blow into the interlock. He'd left his grandson in the truck while he went in to oil his brains and then intended to drive with the kid in the truck. That cop was LUCKY, and so were the rest of us on the road.

I have a nasty suspicion it happens a lot. Interlocks will slow the drunks down, but it won't stop them. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.

Here in central NM, they've started to impound cars of drunks with prior DUIs and sell them at auction if the drunk is convicted. While it is a hardship on the drunk's family, it seems to be the only thing that will keep them off the road.

[sam sarrha]

21. drunk killed my friend, he had 8 convictions and 6 pending court cases, that was in the early 70's..

drunks have killed 3 friends and my father in law..

i have no sympathy.. i am a non practacing alcoholic.. i know what it is like, i think there should be public whippings.. serious bad bloody whippings..

[Warpy]

41. While I understand your anger

since a drunk beat a family member to death, I realize that a whipped drunk would just drink more to try to numb the pain from that, too.

What we need to do is just intervene to keep them off the road. The interlock should be for the first conviction and loss of the vehicle for all subsequent ones. Eventually their friends and families will just stop allowing drunks to drive borrowed cars.

[pnwmom]

60. Why should the breathlyzer be reserved for proven drunk drivers?

Why not use them to prevent any drunk driving?

[mongo]

77. We could apply your "guilty until proven innocent" attitude to ALL aspects of our lives

All photographs you take have to be inspected by the FBI
Cash has to be emiminated and the FBI access to all bank accounts
All homes must be inspected every 6 months to make sure no crime is going on.
All citizens will submit urine, blood and hair samples to check for drugs and to match against crime scene DNA.

What a perfect world it will be when there is no crime...

:sarcasm:

[Warpy]

98. It would be a total waste for most of us

for instance, it'll be 30 years next May since I was dumb enough to try to drink. I'm not an alcoholic, just a migraine sufferer who can't tolerate alcohol in any form.

Most people who drink socially stop with one drink an hour, which is the amount a normal adult can metabolize. They get a nice buzz for 40 minutes or so, and then they go away happy. Many of them only drink at home, a glass of wine after work or with dinner, maybe a nightcap on a particularly stressful day or on the weekend.

As with anything, you have to weigh cost versus benefit. For a generous statisttic of 23% of adults who abuse one substance or another, alcohol usually in combination with other substances or alone, the interlocks would be beneficial. They might also be highly beneficial for drivers under 25, and the installation could result in reduced auto insurance costs for that cohort. However, for the 77% of us who don't abuse alcohol or anything else, the cost is too high and the benefit nonexistent.

I still greatly prefer the impounding of vehicles for every DUI arrest after the first. The only way to get an alcoholic off the road is to take away his car. We have drunks in this state with over 20 DUI convictions. I've noticed fewer of them in the paper since the policy of vehicle confiscation was begun.

[benEzra]

105. I DON'T DRINK...and I don't let anybody EVER borrow my car...

why should I be forced to pay for a breathalyzer, pay to have it fixed when it quits, and be forced to blow in a little tube and be subjected to a mandatory delay every damn time I want to start my own car? There are times where that could be a major inconvenience for me, and times when it could even be a safety risk for me. No thanks.

[johnnie]

107. You can't have anyone else blow into it

They are set to each person and it is close to impossible to have someone else blow into it and start the car. I think someone was spreading an urban legend or the old man was too spent to realize that it wouldn't work.

[wuushew]

13. This is a good thing

better living through technology. The public owns the roads and committing a DUI/DWI is a substantial breach of the social contract.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Between breathalyzers on every car and drunks on the road...

I'd rather have the drunks on the road.

[pnwmom]

30. Why? What's the downside to having to breathe in a breathlyzer?

So you couldn't drive for a while. It wouldn't get you arrested.

What's the downside to driving drunk? You could end up in jail, or worse.

[newsdude]

96. The downside? How about this

I'm smart enough NOT to drink and drive.
Why should I pay for this freakin device.
What if the device goes on the fritz? Who pays for that? How much does that cost? How pissed am I going to be that my car doesn't start when I need to be somewhere because the Michigan cold winter fucked up a circuit?

How about car rentals?
Who keeps these damn things clean?

I'm getting awfully tired of democrats who have the same self-righteous attitude as Freepers, only in different areas.

[wuushew]

33. Why?

Drunk drivers endanger YOU and others, raise your insurance rates and increase strain put on police and medical services.

Since everyone one on this board should consider impaired driving a dangerously immoral and reckless act what freedom are you losing? You are gaining quite a bit.

Seatbelt use and obeying the rules of the road are also mandated as part of the privilege of using public roads. Do you object to the concept of implied consent as well? Any police officer can demand that you give a blood or urine test. A properly functioning alcohol detector wouldn't unfairly judge you or socially humiliate you the way a cop might, nor would a breathalyzer knock out your tail light.

It need not be a breathalyzer either. A similar article in LBN mentioned the possibility of measuring alcohol with a simple optic device based designs used in blood sugar testing. Why should we even need keys in the future? Maybe a quick one or two second thumb print would be all we need to enter our vehicles.


This seems like a victory for both public safety and applied engineering.

[mongo]

78. The seatbelt laws were the start of the downfall of America

into the nanny state society.

I don't need the government to protect me from myself.

[Big Kahuna]

14. I don't know about breathalyzers for cars..

but they should make them for computers... I can post some whoppers :p

[The Straight Story]

19. You and me both :)

But at least if I pass out here all you will see when my head hits the keyboard is ds9fudfg afdaazzzzzzzzz

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. MADD can take a long walk off a short pier.

[pnwmom]

24. MADD has saved a lot of lives. How many have you saved?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. MADD is full of shit.

They endorsed George W. Bush- after it was revealed he was prone to drunken driving.

As for saved lives- a glass of alcohol a day reduces CVD better than statin drugs. Let MADD put that in their pipe and smoke it.

[pnwmom]

32. A glass of alcohol wouldn't prevent you from passing a breathlyzer.

So I guess you can rest easy.

And as far as I know, MADD doesn't oppose drinking in general; just drunk driving.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Sure it will.

Listerine mouthwash will make you fail a breathalyser.

It would be drunk driving to, at the level MADD want's to lower the BAC to.


"And as far as I know, MADD doesn't oppose drinking in general; just drunk driving."

Apparently it started out that way, but it's turning into a Prohibition organization. Per: dupe thread in LBN.

[pnwmom]

38. Do you have a link on that Listerine mouthwash claim?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. No, I haven't.

However, wash your mouth with Listerine, wait a bit, blow into a breathalyzer, it will show as ~0.2% BAC.

MADD wants to consider any BAC to be drunken driving.

[pnwmom]

43. Obviously a level that you can get just from mouthwash is too low.

But what's wrong with having the level set at the same number that the state uses?

[WyLoochka]

70. MADD does oppose

drinking in general. It has essentially morphed into a neo-prohibitionist organization.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

http://www.abionline.org/downloads/ABL_ACovertWarAgainstDrinking.pdf

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2125

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/17

[Ksec]

17. No.

Stay the Hell out of my car . All of yous.

[pnwmom]

25. Then stay off the roads if you're drinking.

[Ksec]

84. I dont drink but

if I did I would drive around your neighborhood, because of that post.

[sam sarrha]

18. alcoholics do not take any vacations.... they are out of control and need a leash if it indicated

it might be a disease but is is also a crime to practice alcoholism and drive.. being out of control thew are going to drive till they get too drunk to crawl out to the car to go get another drink... got to do something with the problem ones..

and i dont think it was indicated to put a test device in 'Every' car.....

[The Straight Story]

29. It was implied in their full release - see also here for more info:

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=breathalyzers%20in%20every%20car%3F

Quite a few articles mentioning this.

[nytemare]

94. It seems to be just the headlines that are saying "every car"

When you look into the context, one article says 245 million Americans, most say "convicted drunken drivers".

News organizations, bloggers, etc, really have that problem of sensationalizing things so they get more readers. Sort of like calling everyone labeled a sexual offender as a predator, to make them seem more scary. MADD puts out this story, and Chicken Little starts running about, "oh no, Big Brother wants to make blow into an interlock device before they drive".

I have no problem with requiring interlock devices for convicted drunken drivers. I don't see where that is going too far. The suggestion in one of the articles that law enforcement will say "why not every car" is much like the NRA's assumption that after the assault weapons ban that all handguns would be banned. The devices cost money, and they are not going to be able to install them in every car.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. sounds like they said for people with prior records not everyone in general

[The Straight Story]

42. See my post #29 above for more info (nt)

[Minnesota_Lib]

31. As fast as they can install these devices there will be products available..

..on the internet or elsewhere designed specially to circumvent them (for instance, a filter that masks your breath or just a mini bellows type device that you use to blow into the breathalyzer).

Will never work.

[pnwmom]

37. You're assuming that all drinkers would want to circumvent them.

I think that many drinkers would just as soon not drive if legally drunk . . . they're just not that good at gauging, once they've started to drink, how drunk they are.

I have a friend who was very grateful that he happened to lose his car keys while he was drunk. He woke up in his car the next day but probably, if he had had his keys, he would have driven it. I think he would probably have been grateful for anything that stopped him, because it certainly wasn't his SOBER intention to drive drunk.

[GoneOffShore]

34. Everything not allowed is forbidden.

We're going that way.

The totalitarians of the right and the left are boxing us all in.

No risk anywhere.

[pnwmom]

40. In a post above, the Minnesota state traffic engineer

says drunk driving is involved in up to 40% of road fatalities. Does that seem like a small risk to you?

[The Straight Story]

45. here are the stats from MN

3,760,000 registered drivers
590 (657 with other vehicle types listed) fatal crashes in 2002
36% were alcohol related
299 were not using seat belts
239 total killed where alcohol was involved (note the term involved, does not mean someone was drunk - when I was a Deputy there where cases where open containers were in the car but the driver was not drinking, the passengers were but it was still labeled as alcohol involved as it was illegal to have open containers)

So out of nearly 4 million drivers there were 239 people killed by where alcohol was involved (* some cases there were multiple deaths per accident, so there were less than 239 actual separate fatal crashes).

There were 28,000 injury crashes in 2002.

Most fatalities were during rush hour traffic.

28% were tied directly to speeding.

[pnwmom]

49. 239 deaths doesn't seem like a small number to me.

And 36% of fatalities doesn't sound like a small fraction of alcohol related deaths.

[benEzra]

74. Don't forget that "alcohol related" means that ANY driver had ANY BAC...

meaning, that if you are sober and run a red light, and kill somebody who was driving responsibly and legally but had a 0.04 BAC, NHTSA would consider that an "alcohol related" death. They're not saying that alcohol caused it in any way, just that alcohol was involved in the accident, either peripherally or centrally.

The percentage of alcohol caused accidents is likely lower than 36%, though it is impossible to say by how much. I'd like to know the number of accidents involving at-fault drivers with BAC >0.08, which would be a more relevant statistic, IMHO.

[Jed Dilligan]

101. I doubt we will ever be allowed to see those statistics

[Cleita]

35. As an ex-bartender, I had too many arguments with

inebriated customers to hand their keys over to me and allow me to call them a cab. I drove many home at closing too because I didn't want them to drive. I think anything that keeps an inebriated person from operating heavy machinery is a step in the right direction.

I had an argument with a cop once who tried to give me a citation for serving a customer too much to drink. I explained to him that the customer only got one drink from me. He apparently had been drinking elsewhere before and didn't actually seem drunk until after I served him. I also thought it wasn't fair that they had technology to test drunkeness before they charged anyone with DUI but I was supposed to be a mind reader.

He didn't give me a citation after that because he said that what I said made sense, so he took the poor guy into custody instead for public drunkeness.

[buddysmellgood]

51. Christ, next they'll want seat belts and airbags! They have really gone off the deep end.

[Telly Savalas]

52. Sheesh. It's bad enough our nanny state doesn't let me drive on the sidewalk

Live free or die!

[Wonk]

54. You left an important point out of your headline: *convicted drunk drivers*

I support this idea, particularly for those with multiple convictions. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[The Straight Story]

55. See post #29 - convicted drunk drivers for NOW...(nt)

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

58. No offense taken :) However, I am not fighting for the right to drive drunk

I just don't like the idea of all cars being mandated for breathalysers. It will add to cost and someone could easily avoid it.

cracking down on people who are driving that way has made an impact, it is working - though the courts mat not being doing all they can on their end.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

61. How many would support this if it was being enforced on pilots flying commercial airlines?

No doubt everyone would support that! Especially if it was on the plane you yourself were flying on. :eyes:

I'm with MADD 100% on this one and actually would support Breathalyzers in all bars and restaurants if not an outright ban on drinking and driving. Driving is serious business and far too many consider their cars as a comfy extension of their living room or local hangout.

[GoneOffShore]

75. 8 hours from bottle to throttle

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/02/ltm.11.html

"There are strict rules in place, however, to try to prevent alcohol from impeding their ability to fly. There is a strict rule by the FAA. Eight hours bottle to throttle, it is called. That's eight hours from drinking to flying. That's probably tighter than it should be. The airlines, in many cases, have set up 24-hour rules, 24 hours from drink to fly, and then, of course, the blood alcohol level is at least below .04. Some airlines have a zero tolerance for this sort of thing."

The rules are in place.

I know pilots who won't have a drink 12 hours before they fly.

Again - we are soon to be in the situation of Everything not allowed is forbidden.

[B Calm]

64. Before a drunk went into the bar, could he blow up a balloon for

his breath test later? I drive for a living and I hate drunk drivers worse than anything, but this is just stupid.

[bluedogyellowdog]

66. MADD has long outlived any positive purpose for being

and needs to disband. Seriously.

[Ganja Ninja]

72. That's going to cut in to the GOP's vote turnout next election day.

They're going to have to run a shuttle bus from the bars to the voting booths so the rednecks can cast their vote for the dear leader.

[noonwitch]

73. I don't have a problem with requiring this from those convicted of DUI or DWI

I do have a problem with requiring everyone to have one, because they are not a cheap feature to have on cars. I'd rather see the auto companies developing features that save gas consumption.

We had an accident in suburban Detroit last year in which a guy who had drunk so much he shouldn't have been able to walk plowed into a car carrying a mom and her kids and killed them all. The driver now has brain damage, pled guilty, and told the court he would never drive again after he served his time (he said he doesn't ever want to drive again).

If he had had something like that installed in his car, that family would still be alive, he would not have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life, and he would not have been brain-damaged by the accident, at least (although the level of alcohol in his blood stream may have caused that in and of itself).

[Crandor]

76. Topic title is misleading.

MADD only wants the breathalyzers in cars for people already convicted of drunk driving.

I don't get how anybody can oppose this, unless they bought into the right-wing "Government = Bad!!!!!!!11" kool-aid, or have a severe lack of empathy. If someone in your family was killed by a drunk driver would you still be so supportive of the "right" to drive while intoxicated?

[Jed Dilligan]

104. I'd still be against MADD and all other fearmongering whores

who want to lock-down our whole society while filling their own pockets.

I've been beaten and robbed on the street and yet I still stand strongly for the rights of the accused.

[Madrone]

80. I know someone that's' SUPPOSED to have one of these -

Installed in his truck. He hasn't had a driver's license in 5 years (minimum) that I'm aware of. The only way the state of WY will give him a license is if he installs one of these devices in his truck. If he did, he'd never be able to start it - he's always drunk. I've seen him get out of his truck and be practically unable to WALK. But he drives every day. Even across the country. He's going to kill someone, and one of these devices would go a long way in preventing that.

[wuushew]

81. You really should report that guy

n/t

[Madrone]

83. I've discussed him with the police on a few occasions.

He stalked me pretty hardcore for awhile- long story. Don't know why he's still on the road. :shrug: I'm just thankful he's not here (WA) anymore and has gone back to WY.

[Jed Dilligan]

85. I wonder how many women will get raped

while waiting for their car to decide if they're okay to drive.

:eyes:

[JVS]

86. Maybe the MADD people should offer rides to drunk people in bars

[Jed Dilligan]

102. But that would be neither punitive nor invasive!

[JVS]

103. God forbid!

[B Calm]

88. I remember when I could drink and drive as long as I wasn't drunk.

[porphyrian]

89. Why not have cars check our piss, too?

Maybe it should do a brain scan to make sure we aren't in danger of having an aneurysm on the road if we drive.

It's terrible to lose a loved one in an accident, especially if it was due to another driver who shouldn't have been driving. However, if you really want to eliminate drunk driving, you have to cure the problems that cause alcoholism, not irritate the other 90+% of the population after the fact. Curing poverty in America would go much further towards a real solution.

[wuushew]

90. Alcoholism is genetic

Drunk driving is a man made phenomena not-existing prior to the 20th century. I just like the poetic satisfaction of solving a problem caused by technology with a better smarter use of the same human ingenuity.

[porphyrian]

91. Alcoholism doesn't make you drink and drive.

This does nothing to solve alcoholism, it simply inconveniences the ninety-plus percent of drivers who aren't drunk to force the other less-than-ten percent who are to find another way to start their car. It's a bandaid solution at best, and it wouldn't be poetically satisfying when you're late for something and now your car won't start because the breathalizer chip thinks your mouthwash is over the legal limit.

[wuushew]

92. I empathize with those who have halitosis

but a wide variety of dental and mouth hygiene products exist that will accomplish the same function as Listerine.

[porphyrian]

95. That's weak. - n/t

[porphyrian]

99. Your lack of compassion didn't address the point I made.

Car breathalizer-starters do nothing to address the problem of alcoholism, will not prevent drunk driving, but will punish the rest of us with added expense and another unnecessary technological hurdle in living our lives. I call bullshit.

[sniffa]

106. that wiLL never, ever fLy here

drunk driving is our state sport.

[johnnie]

108. I had one of those many years ago

First off, no one else can blow in it for you because it is set up to each person. You could probably go around and find a person with your lung capacity and whatever they set it to, but that would take some doing.

Secondly, a balloon would do know good. You have to hum and blow at the same time and it takes some pressure, a balloon wouldn't cut it.

Also, you can't blow into it if you just had a cigarette, used mouthwash, brushed your teeth and a lot of other things that would screw it up. If it doesn't work for three times, you have to call a technician that has to come out and reset it.

The way it is set up, no one else can drive your car. I would guess that they would have to program different ones for different users of the car.

I am not sticking up for drunk drivers, but this idea is one of the most ridiculous ideas to come along in a while. Yeah, I got busted for DUI, but that isn't why I think this is stupid. I think they should first put these in all the MADD cars first and then they can see how much they like having to go through the whole thing just to start their car.

Maybe the technology has changed since I had one of these, it's been quite a while, but what I saw on the news, it looks like the same device I had. Trust me, these things would do more harm than good in the long run, plus I am getting sick of the way this country is becoming more and more involved in our personal lives.