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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's kind of like saying "if murderers just didn't murder, that would prevent homicides altogether"



Overall it's only lowered about half since the 1980s in the US, disproportionately low compared to the increase in penalties.

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

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"?

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.

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.

I never even mentioned murderers. I just brought out something about people who drink.

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)?


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.

It's .8 in most all states in the USA, same as in England.

I'm just pointing out that there would be ways of getting around that device .



Drink driving is in a different league to this. It's driving under the influence of a mind altering substance.

To the person who started the thread....... duh

__________________
You are no Vader. You are just a child in a mask.

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.

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'.

I'm for confiscated someones car on their second DWI office with in 10 year period. No car, no drunk driver.

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?

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.