View Full Version : A breathlyzer device in every car could prevent 80% of DWI deaths
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/291043.php
What's your opinion on this? Would you support these devices being mandatory to be installed in all new vehicles?
I'd be totally down with this, and see little drawback. I think this would virtually eliminate drunk driving as we know it.
Citizen Rules
03-22-15, 05:44 PM
I would agree BUT I have two big problems with it.
1, A breathalyzer device in every car is a huge violation of our privacy rights. That's why I don't support random roadside sobriety checks. I'm not willing to give that much power to the government/police either. There is enough intrusions into our lives.
2, The cost to retrofit every single car in America would be astronomically expensive, probably in the billions. And the poor won't be able to pay, so the middle class will end up being taxed to foot the bill.
I hate drunk driving and believe we should have much firmer laws in place with stricter penalties for breaking the law. A good place to look to is Germany, their DWI's are much lower than ours.
christine
03-22-15, 06:27 PM
The stats are saying that drink driving accidents are reduced massively in the past few decades. When I think back to when I was young people would go to the pub and think nothing of driving home. I think mass public disquiet and disapproval is a much stronger tool than legislation for changing attitudes. I don't like the idea of treating everyone like they're about to drink drive , it's a hammer to crack a nut. Treat the people who do bad things, don't treat all of us as a coverall.
I would agree BUT I have two big problems with it.
1, A breathalyzer device in every car is a huge violation of our privacy rights. That's why I don't support random roadside sobriety checks. I'm not willing to give that much power to the government/police either. There is around enough intrusions into our lives.
That's an interesting take; a breathalyzer by itself though wouldn't report its findings to an authority, it would simply not allow the ignition to start if it detects alcohol.
2, The cost to retrofit every single car in America would be astronomically expensive, probablly in the billions. And the poor won't be able to pay, so the middle class will end up being taxed to foot the bill.
I wouldn't be in favor of retrofitting current cars with the devices, just in favor of having them installed in all new cars from here on out.
I hate drunk driving and believe we should have much firmer laws in place with stricter penalties for breaking the law. A good place to look to is Germany, their DWI's are much lower than ours.
I actually lean toward lesser penalties for drunk driving, even down toward making it a traffic violation rather than a crime in the case of drunk drivers who don't actually cause an accident; I don't think that putting lots of people in jail and housing them with our tax dollars is the best solution (as well as making it harder for them to find employment due to a crime being on their record) - and while the rates have gone down since the 80s, they haven't gone down astronomically in proportion to the increase in penalties.
I think that making it harder to willingly commit is the best solution to preventing deaths; if a person can't start their car while intoxicated they'd have to be hell bent on driving drunk rather than making a careless decision on the spur of the moment.
Wouldn't not drinking just prevent DWI deaths altogether. :facepalm:
Wouldn't not drinking just prevent DWI deaths altogether. :facepalm:
That's kind of like saying "if murderers just didn't murder, that would prevent homicides altogether"
:facepalm:
The stats are saying that drink driving accidents are reduced
massively in the past few decades.
Overall it's only lowered about half since the 1980s in the US, disproportionately low compared to the increase in penalties.
When I think back to when I was young people would go to the pub and think nothing of driving home. I think mass public disquiet and disapproval is a much stronger tool than legislation for changing attitudes.
There's not a lot of statistical evidence in support of that.
In fact in many cases the opposite is true - for example in many European countries the rate of smoking is double that of the US, despite higher cigarette taxes and stricter public smoking regulations
That's kind of like saying "if murderers just didn't murder, that would prevent homicides altogether"
:facepalm:
Technically it would lol.
Technically it would lol.
Is your conclusion then that there should be no legal action to prevent murder; that we should just "wait until murderers decide not to murder people anymore"?
christine
03-22-15, 07:03 PM
That's an interesting take; a breathalyzer by itself though wouldn't report its findings to an authority, it would simply not allow the ignition to start if it detects alcohol.
I wouldn't be in favor of retrofitting current cars with the devices, just in favor of having them installed in all new cars from here on out.
Its a complete waste of money installing these gadgets into cars. What's to stop someone else breathing into the thing then someone else driving? There'd be no proof of anything under law.
I actually lean toward lesser penalties for drunk driving, even down toward making it a traffic violation rather than a crime in the case of drunk drivers who don't actually cause an accident; I don't think that putting lots of people in jail and housing them with our tax dollars is the best solution (as well as making it harder for them to find employment due to a crime being on their record) - and while the rates have gone down since the 80s, they haven't gone down astronomically in proportion to the increase in penalties.
I think that making it harder to willingly commit is the best solution to preventing deaths; if a person can't start their car while intoxicated they'd have to be hell bent on driving drunk rather than making a careless decision on the spur of the moment.
Don't agree with lesser penalties. Drunk drivers who don't cause an accident are drunk drivers just waiting to cause one. I don't know what the blood alcohol levels are for driving offences in the US , but in England we have one of the most lenient in Europe at 80 Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood . In some parts of Europe it's 50, and some 30. I'm with Scotland and France who've reduced it to 50.
Is your conclusion then that there should be no legal action to prevent murder; that we should just "wait until murderers decide not to murder people anymore"?
I never even mentioned murderers. I just brought out something about people who drink.
Its a complete waste of money installing these gadgets into cars. What's to stop someone else breathing into the thing then someone else driving? There'd be no proof of anything under law.
Why would an average person be that determined to take a risk of drinking and driving, that they'd go through the trouble of convincing a sober friend to blow in the device (but not just have them drive the drunk person home instead)?
Don't agree with lesser penalties. Drunk drivers who don't cause an accident re drunk drivers just waiting to cause one. I don't know what the blood alcohol levels are for driving offences in the US , but in England we have one of the most lenient in Europe at 80 Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood . In some parts of Europe it's 50, and some 30. I'm with Scotland and France who've reduced it to 50.
That's true but there are other dangerous traffic offenses with which aren't crimes - for example driving in the wrong side of traffic but not causing an accident isn't automatically a crime, even though it's arguably just as dangerous.
Citizen Rules
03-22-15, 07:11 PM
Don't agree with lesser penalties. Drunk drivers who don't cause an accident re drunk drivers just waiting to cause one. I don't know what the blood alcohol levels are for driving offences in the US , but in England we have one of the most lenient in Europe at 80 Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood . In some parts of Europe it's 50, and some 30. I'm with Scotland and France who've reduced it to 50. It's .8 in most all states in the USA, same as in England.
christine
03-22-15, 07:18 PM
Why would an average person be that determined to take a risk of drinking and driving, that they'd go through the trouble of convincing a sober friend to blow in the device (but not just have them drive the drunk person home instead)?
I'm just pointing out that there would be ways of getting around that device .
That's true but there are other dangerous traffic offenses with which aren't crimes - for example driving in the wrong side of traffic but not causing an accident isn't automatically a crime, even though it's arguably just as dangerous.
Drink driving is in a different league to this. It's driving under the influence of a mind altering substance.
teeter_g
03-22-15, 07:27 PM
To the person who started the thread....... duh
teeter_g
03-22-15, 07:28 PM
Seriously though, I don't see it as a problem at all. I think that it would be a good idea. I do know a lot of people that would be pissed about it, but I honestly don't care, it would be for the best.
Citizen Rules
03-22-15, 07:32 PM
I actually lean toward lesser penalties for drunk driving, even down toward making it a traffic violation rather than a crime in the case of drunk drivers who don't actually cause an accident; I don't think that putting lots of people in jail and housing them with our tax dollars is the best solution (as well as making it harder for them to find employment due to a crime being on their record)...
I think that making it harder to willingly commit is the best solution to preventing deaths; if a person can't start their car while intoxicated they'd have to be hell bent on driving drunk rather than making a careless decision on the spur of the moment.
Let me get this straight. You want breathalyzer devices mandated in new cars to help prevent DWI...But you also want to lessen the penalties for DWI? That's odd.
On another thread you talked about going out and drinking in bars with what you called 'drinking buddies'...To me it sounds like you're worried about getting a DWI (hence the interest in car breathalyzers which would stop a person from unknowingly driving drunk) and you seem worried about the consequences of being caught, so you'd like lesser penalties. Is that what's on your mind?
Let me get this straight. You want breathalyzer devices mandated in new cars to help prevent DWI...But you also want to lessen the penalties for DWI? That's odd.
On another thread you talked about going out and drinking in bars with what you called 'drinking buddies'...To me it sounds like you're worried about getting a DWI (hence the interest in car breathalyzers which would stop a person from unknowingly driving drunk) and you seem worried about the consequences of being caught, so you'd like lesser penalties. Is that what's on your mind?
I don't get the impression that people who are compulsive drinkers (aka addicts) and drink and drive frequently are discouraged a lot by 'harsher penalties' - punishment doesn't do a lot to end addiction the way I see it. This is true of other drugs as well.
Making it harder to do in the first place though would go a lot further in ending crashes caused by DWI, since it's a careless act done by someone not in a sound mind, not something people are 'hell bent on doing'.
Citizen Rules
03-22-15, 07:43 PM
I'm for confiscated someones car on their second DWI office with in 10 year period. No car, no drunk driver.
Sexy Celebrity
03-22-15, 07:50 PM
I would rather see alcohol banned than see everyone forced to take a breathalyzer test before driving. That is a nasty intrusion, forcing people to be treated like alcoholics or something before they could drive. Don't put alcohol on everyone's mind. Many people live without it. If it's so dangerous, make alcohol illegal. Marijuana's illegal, so why not alcohol?
Citizen Rules
03-22-15, 07:57 PM
If it's so dangerous, make alcohol illegal. Marijuana's illegal, so why not alcohol? We already tried that with prohibition, which failed miserably. Most people can responsibility enjoy an alcoholic beverage so why would we want to make alcohol illegal.
BTW, Marijuana is not illegal in my state, Washington.
I would rather see alcohol banned than see everyone forced to take a breathalyzer test before driving. That is a nasty intrusion, forcing people to be treated like alcoholics or something before they could drive. Don't put alcohol on everyone's mind. Many people live without it. If it's so dangerous, make alcohol illegal. Marijuana's illegal, so why not alcohol?
Marijuana shouldn't be illegal either - the benefits outweight the cons on so many levels (taxable source of revenue, no more wasting tax dollars locking up people for a non-violent offense, keeping it off the streets and out of the hands of gangs, etc)
And I don't think anyone wants to return to the prohibition era.
Sexy Celebrity
03-22-15, 08:11 PM
I don't want alcohol banned, but, if it was between that or mandatory car breathalyzers, screw the damn alcohol. I could live without it and if it's killing everybody, we could live without it. How ridiculous to slave yourself to breathalyzers every time you drive if you never drink. I'm just saying if it got that bad, alcohol doesn't deserve to be legal, then. Get rid of the problem, don't make everyone be a slave to it. This kind of thing treats everyone as possible criminals. As if alcohol is a part of everyone's life. Better to ban the killer than make us all slaves to it.
matt72582
03-23-15, 01:17 PM
Maybe with these breathalyzers, we could get rid of the "sobriety checks" - I'm also against drunk driving, and I hate losing any rights, but I don't think drunk driving is a right. I've known too many people who've been killed this way (classmates)..
I also think cops should be forced to wear those body cams so the truth is objective.
matt72582
03-23-15, 01:20 PM
Maybe instead of banning alcohol, maybe banning bars. Most people at the bar are drinking, and they have to drive. It would be cool if people drank at home with themselves or with friends, and if someone is too drunk, they can stay there. And if a fight breaks out, with guns blazing, the entire place isn't shot down because some guy hid a loaded gun in his sweatpants.
I had my alcohol days, drank 2 beers a year ago, wasn't worth it, don't think I'll ever drink again. No positives.
christine
03-23-15, 04:15 PM
Banning alcohol? Banning bars? What's wrong with you all??
It's a rediculous idea having breathalizers built into a car. How about having an eye test also built in, or a drug test, or a heart monitor, or something that makes sure you can't eat or smoke or fiddle with the radio. How about banning people from driving alone with their kids as that's one of the most distracting things you can have when you're driving. Or banning people from driving between 10pm and 4am as apparently half the drivers involved in accidents between those hours are over the limit.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.