Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

[NightWatcher]

Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/

If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.

But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. How about a compromise.

How about we legalize drunk driving, then nobody needs this shit.

[Vickers]

2. One more thing to (a) pay for, and (b) get repaired.

Woo hoo.

[glowing]

3. I think this is ridiculous.. another nanny state thing... and by all likelihood, you'll

go out to your car in the AM after rinsing with scope, and the damn car won't start...

[NightWatcher]

5. Man arrested after making son blow into car's Breathalyzer

Man arrested after making son blow into car's Breathalyzer
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8455119

AUSTIN, Texas (KXAN) -- A Central Texas man thought he had found a way around blowing into his car ignition's Breathalyzer.

Witnesses reported seeing James Rethi, 55, make his 13-year-old son blow into the device to get the car started outside of a restaurant.

------

Ok, so it has already been defeated by a drunk and his kid.

[Carnea]

34. You would think a store bought ballon would work as well. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. "Land of the free............" LOL!

:silly:

[Greyskye]

4. It would create a brand-new cottage service industry!

People who wait outside bars that you pay to puff into the breathalyzer in your car.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. Or, mechanics that dismantle/circumvent such systems. F'n stupid idea.

[pt22]

29. Can they pass out flyers, "Blow jobs ten bucks" ?

:evilgrin:

[johnaries]

6. When I drink coffee, I register.

I know the same thing happens with a lot of other people. This would be grossly unfair and a violation of our rights.

[Meiko]

9. Driving is not a right

...and driving drunk certainly isn't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Being a worthless jackass isn't a right either.

So tell the people who think this is a good idea.

[Taverner]

18. Legally its a privlege

But that doesn't matter, because it has become a de facto right. Might as well accept it.

[johnaries]

28. But discrimination is still against the law.

This would unfairly discriminate against coffee drinkers.

[Carnea]

35. said the dog with the Martini. nt

[newmajority]

32. Is that Irish coffee?

:evilgrin:

[liberal N proud]

7. They spend their time on this shit

And do nothing to make cars more fuel efficient.

Do they really want to continue to sell cars?

[lonestarnot]

8. They could give a flying fucked about dead and maimed victims. Some richie is

making money off the device.

[Warpy]

10. Since my last drink was in May, 1977, I'd resent the hell out of it

but if it'll get some of the drunks off the road around here, I'm all for it.

Nothing's perfect, of course. One old geezer here was busted for making his 5 year old grandson blow into the BAT interlock. Thank goodness the cops saw it and nailed him before he got more than half a block, his grandson was in the car (natch).

It needs to be combined with a huge fine for having someone else blow into it, possibly impound of the vehicles of both people.

I'd love to get the drunks off the road. People back east have no idea how bad it is out west.

[NightWatcher]

12. would you support a surveillance camera in your bedroom if it prevented some domestic abuse?

it's just another step in the Totalitarian Tip Toe

[Warpy]

13. There's a world of difference between

an ignition interlock and a boudoir spy cam. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Nice red herring.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Way to defend rape, Hitler.

[NightWatcher]

17. of course I did, but isnt this an unwarranted search? no prob cause every time you crank up

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Taverner]

27. Yes, unwarranted search

[Mojorabbit]

19. Warpy

I don't think there IS a difference. I am all for getting drunks off the road too but I am not for this.I am betting some diabetics would blow positive too. It should be an opt in if you want extra on the car but not be mandatory.

[Carnea]

36. Not really. There is also a hell of difference between registering alchol

and impaired.... MADD has forgotten that but then again they are more interested in their Carrie Nation agenda than drunk driving.

[Liberal In Texas]

11. MADD has WAY too much influence.

This is ridiculous. (About the only good that would come out of it is a cottage industry of techs you could hire to disable the stupid things.)

[Taverner]

16. Better idea: how about the self driving cars?

They had these working in San Diego for a while, then I never heard anything more....

That way you COULD drive drunk without any consequences, other than to your liver

[madinmaryland]

21. Dude!! That is called "public transportation". That quaint thing

that we don't want to pay for!

[Taverner]

25. I'm all for that, but San Diego was trying out self driving cars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car

Sure, we could rip up LA and San Jose and put in subways everywhere. That would work - NOT! American Drivers are very reluctant to give up their autonomy. Don't even try.

I think this is the better solution.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. They should just ban alcohol.... and cars....

Hey, I don't drink, so why should I care if someone else can't? That follows the logic of the gun grabbers, doesn't it? *They* don't like guns, so *they* think no one else should have them either, right?

[Taverner]

26. LOL too true

[newmajority]

33. Bit of a difference there.

Alcohol and Cars, when used properly, (and separately) don't kill people. Guns were invented specifically for that purpose.

Now I don't have a problem with sane, law abiding adults owning a reasonable number of firearms myself, I'm just saying the analogy kinda sucks.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. I guess we disagree on what guns were made for...

Mine are made for deer hunting, turkey hunting, squirrel hunting or rabbit hunting. They can also be used to shoot poisonous snakes, such as copperheads and/or rattlers, as I live in a very rural area out in the woods. Of course they can also be used to shoot a stray dog that is threatening one of my kids or animals, and can also be used, if needed, for self defense. For self defense against another human being, I'd rather beat the shit out of them than have to shoot them.... it's more fun and better exercise. I would have no qualms, however, with shooting someone if I had to. I've done it before. I don't lose any sleep over it.

[newmajority]

38. I guess we don't disagree at all then

Everything you just mentioned involves killing. Whether any or all of the examples is justified or not is beside the point. Still, the truth remains that the one and only purpose of a gun, is to kill. And that's not the case with cars. Or most other things on the planet. Even most other weapons have other uses. (Knives, chainsaws, baseball bats, etc.)

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. Oh, we disagree... you said they were made for killing *people*...

"Alcohol and Cars, when used properly, (and separately) don't kill people. Guns were invented specifically for that purpose.


My guns weren't made to kill *people*, and when used properly, they *don't* kill people... when used improperly they can, and will, kill *people*. It's against the law to kill *people*, but they do have legal hunting seasons for game animals.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... with guns... and knives.. and baseball bats... and rocks... and cars... and liquor bottles... and hammers...

As a matter of fact, there was just a story in my local paper about a guy who was standing beside his house and got rammed through his house with a car by a guy who was mad at him.... does that mean that cars kill people... or does it mean that people with cars kill people?

[Cleita]

23. As an ex-bartender it seems like a good idea to me if it's of the type

that shuts down the car so the driver can't drive. It would have saved many an argument trying to get said driver to get a cab home and pick up the car the next day. It also would save many drivers, a wrecked vehicle, a trip to the hospital or morgue and worse a trip to jail or killing an innocent passenger or bystander. I think the positives out way the negatives.

[madinmaryland]

24. The Nancy Grace solution: that assumes everyone is guilty until

they can prove themselves innocent.

[Dukkha]

30. They can blow me if they think I'm going to blow my car!

another colossally stupid idea!