Congress: Breathalyzers in Every Car

[rambone]

Should Cars Have Built-In Breathalyzers?

"Interlock Devices" Could Be Coming To A Car Near You

by Craig Howie | AOL Autos

Posted: Aug, 26 2009



Each year, 13,000 people are killed by drunk drivers with a blood alcohol level above .08. Advocates of a new standard for in-car breathalyzers say that most, if not all, of those accidents could have been avoided if the drunk driver hadn't been able to turn his or her car on. If Congress and Mothers Against Drunk Driving get their way, could your next new car could come with a breathalyzer pre-installed?

Much confusion surrounds in-car breathalyzer devices for those convicted of a DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI (driving while impaired), their nationwide rollout and several bills going through Congress on the matter. Some predict we'll all be driving a car with a similar device in future -- guilty or not -- whereas some say that the way lawmakers are going, that ultimately sobering future isn't too far away. We aim to separate the facts from the fiction.

​

The nationwide picture
Some 47 states currently have in-car breathalyzer laws where a driver convicted of DUI or DWI may be forced to install an "interlock" device, connected to the ignition, that monitors the amount of alcohol on a driver's breath and prevents the car from starting with a positive reading. An interlock device is mandatory punishment for a first offender in eight states, including New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois and Washington. Only three states -- Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont -- don't impose interlock penalties. Convicted drivers are expected to pay for the units, their installation and a monthly rental fee on top of the fine for DUI. Currently, about 140,000 of the devices are monitoring convicted drunk-drivers nationwide.

Controversy, and some confusion, has emerged recently over the proposed reauthorization of the Highway Bill -- yet to reach the House floor -- which contains a measure that stipulates that states will be denied federal highway funding if a mandatory interlock punishment is not imposed on first-time DUI offenders. A second measure also before Congress includes raising funding for research of non-invasive in-car breathalyzers. The two measures are quite separate, although both are backed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.


Local, national advocates
Carl McDonald, of MADD, is quick to point out that while the campaign group is in favor of mandatory interlock penalties in all cases of DUI or DWI, or for about 1.5 million Americans convicted each year; the group is not in favor of a rollout of breathalyzers in every new car.

"Some say that MADD is in favor of putting interlocks in every car," McDonald said. "This is not the case. An interlock device is a method by which people demonstrate sobriety by actively doing something. We would never subject the population to that kind of thing by car. That's only for offenders."

Citing "remarkable progress" in the number of states signing into law mandatory interlocks for all offenders, he says the law is an "easy sell to lawmakers" -- even in the face of opposition from states' rights groups. He adds that safety legislation on airbags and seat belts also became a federal issue and puts a timeframe of about ten years on a majority of states adopting, and enforcing, an interlock law for all offenders.

"What happens in real life...there are people who have been arrested and convicted of drunk driving," McDonald said. "Following that conviction they were suspended. People we know violate those laws repeatedly and they may have been picked up repeatedly. We know they're driving without insurance and often intoxicated. We want to make sure that if they're driving at all, they're driving sober."

New Mexico was the first state to mandate interlock installation for first-time DUI offenders and its governor, Bill Richardson, recently announced a partnership with MADD to expand the program. Chiefly this involves a public relations campaign aimed at state lawmakers and persuading congressional representatives of the merits of withholding federal highway funds from states that do not mandate the interlocks for first offenders.

Rachel O'Connor, New Mexico's DWI "czar," says since the law's 2005 inception, the state has seen a "35 per cent reduction in alcohol fatalities," which she attributes to New Mexico's interlock mandate serving as a "deterrent" as well as the state's "increased enforcement, working with bars and restaurants, public awareness campaigns and increasing funding for drug programs."


Voices against
Jim Baxter, president of the libertarian-leaning National Motorists Association, is of a different opinion.

"Many of our members are against Congress imposing dictates on the states," said Baxter. "We think the courts are in the best position to make the decision.

"California, back in 1990s, passed legislation requiring ignition interlock devices for people convicted of DUI. They found that when they compared first-time violators who put those devices in their cars, they had significantly more accidents than those that did not. The whole idea of why you have DUI laws it to prevent accidents, so why would you promote a strategy that increases accidents?"

Baxter refers to a study commissioned by California in 2004 that states: "Drivers installing an IID [ignition interlock device] have a lower risk for a subsequent DUI conviction than drivers not installing an IID, indicating that the IIDs prevented DUI recidivism, as designed. However, on the important traffic safety issue measure of crashes, drivers installing an IID had a higher risk of subsequent crash than did drivers not installing an IID."

The study adds: "The preponderance of evidence suggests that IIDs are effective in reducing DUI recidivism, by as much as 40-95%, at least as long as they remain installed on vehicles. Most of the studies showing positive effects of IIDs also show that there is no social learning associated with the devices, that is, once removed from the vehicle, recidivism climbs back up."


Future trends
Russ Rader, at the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, says his group backs the notion of interlock devices.

"The institute strongly supports interlocks for first-time offenders," he said. "Studies show lower rates of recidivism when an interlock device is installed.

"There is also a cooperative venture underway involving motor vehicle manufacturers, the federal government, and the institute to oversee development of advanced in-vehicle detection technologies that would be suitable for all drivers, not just convicted offenders.

"The goal is to have a device that can quickly, accurately, and unobtrusively measure [blood-alcohol content] through sensors in the steering wheel or devices that measure ambient air in the vehicle."

Wade Newton, at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, says his group backs the measure for mandatory interlock installation for first-time offenders, alongside a further measure that seeks to increase funding for research into "non-invasive" devices.

Though the research is at an early stage, Newton says group members that include Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW and Mercedes are looking at "ways to measure alcohol content through skin or perspiration or a light off a driver's retina, so drivers don't know it's happening.

"It could be a steering wheel or brake shift or door handle where the skin would come in contact. It's important to be non-invasive so it doesn't hassle the sober driver."


Legal matters
Dan Jaffe, a DUI lawyer and owner of DUIatttorney.com, says he believes there is a crucial difference between a first-time, perhaps accidental offender and a habitual drunk-driver caught for the first time, a factor that mandatory imposition of an in-car breathalyzer may gloss over.

"It depends on facts of case," said Jaffe. "Is it a first offense where a person is barely above it, or a first offense where person is four times over the limit? Someone has three beers and makes a mistake and somebody who has 20 beers and finally gets caught?"

He says inability to pay for the device may result in a total ban from driving depending on where you reside. To drive legally In Arizona, Jaffe says, a convicted driver must pay for the device's installation and monthly rental fees, which can each top $75. In New Mexico, the state covers 50 per cent of the total cost for impoverished or unemployed drivers, which is taken out of fines paid by previous DUI offenders.

"I do have a feeling that they prevent a lot of people from getting DUIs," Jaffe said. "But I have seen a lot of cases where the person has it and they're fine, then [when it's removed] two or three weeks later they're arrested.

"My perspective is, if a device in my vehicle prevents me from driving [over the limit] and it just sensed it -- something I didn't have to blow into -- I wouldn't mind it as I don't drink and drive anyway, and as long as the thing doesn't malfunction and cause me inconvenience. But everybody I've talked to hates [the interlock device]. They think it's embarrassing and a burden and expensive and intrusive."

What are your thoughts on interlock devices? Should cars have them installed so that the roads are safer, or is this too much an invasion of our privacy?

​

All in the name of safety and security...

 

[SavageEagle]

Just another infringement upon our rights. They can kiss it. I'll rip it out before I drive a car with government controls on it.

 

[level.eleven]

YouTube - Drinking and Driving

Drunk driving is quite an interesting topic.

 

[Turtle]

If your cought drinking while driving then this makes for a good method of controll and punishment. But for every one? No freakin way!. I figured it was only a matter of time before they started using our vehicles as controlle devices. If this is the case we are just a couple steps away from being microchipped just like dogs. We are nothing but servants to the dirty rotten wanna be rulers. Both sides both parties. We are just sheep and wolves.

 

[rambone]

Constitutionality of this proposal

Note: please vote before reading this post.

I'm going to explain which answers the U.S. Constitution supports and which it does not support. I assume that most poll-voters will vote first before reading this post.


Unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment
For one thing, the Federal Government has no business enforcing something like this because we have the 10th Amendment. This amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
​

This means that if there should be laws about this, it should be a matter left to state congress. So some states would have mandatory breathalyzers and live in safety, and others would not have more laws and live in freedom.


Unconstitutional due to the 4th Amendment
Now that you see that this matter is only up for the individual states to decide, I will discuss how it is still unconstitutional due to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment says,

"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."
​

Probable Cause is required to search a person, including searching inside their blood stream for alcohol. Making everyone have mandatory breathalyzer searches is akin to searching every single car on the road for drugs. Since we live in freedom and not in a police-state, we require that there first be probable cause to search someone.

The Police can't make you take a breathalyzer because you have constitutional rights. Those rights aren't null-and-void when machines are doing police work.

Do you enjoy being treated guilty until proven innocent?


Other implications of Mandatory Breathalyzers
Forcing all cars to have additional gadgets built into them will drive up the cost of new vehicles. Additionally, new laws requiring old vehicles to have these devices will be expensive to the car-owner to buy the devices and have them installed.

Do you enjoy replacing $500 sensors that verify tire pressure? Well the mandatory breathalyzer interlock device is another expensive gadget that will eventually break and you will have to pay to replace. And this may apply to people who do not even drink alcohol.



It boils down to a question, worded in different ways:
Do you think the Founding Fathers were fools when they went to such great lengths to keep Government out of our lives & our privacy? Do you reject the constitution as it is written? Are you comfortable with sacrificing your freedom in order to allow the Government to give you a false sense of security?


Liberty or Safety?
This debate is similar to gun control debates. Restrict everyone in hopes that criminals play by the rules too. For any sensor or electronic device to test something, there is a way to fool it. Just google "beat a breathalyzer" for more information. The creeps who want to drink and drive are still going to find a way to do so. And you will have to jump through more hoops and pay more fees to indulge in your false sense of security. Enjoy.

 

[leftsock]

If Congress and Mothers Against Drunk Driving get their way...

CDC - Impaired Driving

Let's say that the population of the United States is about 305 million people.

In 2006, 13,470 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...

This gives us each about a 0.004% chance of being killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash each year.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I usually get the feeling that most things legislative follow this general plan:
Phase 1: Get Congress to push special interests
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

 

[SC_Shooter]

Sounds like a great plan. Can we also get toilet sensors that nab urine samples installed on the toilets of those convicted of drug offenses? Maybe we can expland it to anyone who has a probation agreement specifying that they not use alcohol or drugs as a condition.

Not all toilets, mind you, but on the ones in their homes and places of business.








j/k

 

[leftsock]

Oh yeah, I like these two items also from the CDC's website concerning who is most at risk:

Young people:

• At all levels of BAC, the risk of being involved in a crash is greater for young people than for older people.7 In 2006, 19% of drivers ages 16 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking alcohol.1
• Young men ages 18 to 20 (under the legal drinking age) reported driving while alcohol-impaired more than any other age group. 4,8

I'd like to think that simple good parenting would solve this issue relating to young people.

CDC - Impaired Driving

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Although I'm opposed to making it mandatory on every vehicle I've known two guys that have had these on their cars and actually needed to .

 

[SavageEagle]

I'd like to think that simple good parenting would solve this issue relating to young people.

STOP THAT! You'll confuse the liberals!

 

[matthock]

Not like they work that well anyway - there's nothing saying that the driver is going to be the one guaranteed to be blowing into it in the first place.

One thing I'm wondering about - to what degree does it record past successes/failures? If it has some sort of "black box" and stores data about the usage, that's a pretty big deal. If it doesn't retain data, it's not quite so bad, although I wouldn't want to see the added expense tacked onto everyone's car for a few people.

One way I could see it working is to offer a discount on car insurance premiums for people who use one, particularly for drivers below the age of 25. That would make it voluntary, at least.

 

[Dryden]

Sure, now they want to mandate this device..... AFTER Fat Teddy has his license revoked.
Half of Congress and the Senate would have to disable this device just to get to the House floor to vote on it.

 

[rambone]

Sure, now they want to mandate this device..... AFTER Fat Teddy has his license revoked.
Half of Congress and the Senate would have to disable this device just to get to the House floor to vote on it.

Now that is funny

 

[mettle]

I'd bet my 2nd G19 that %80 of the guys on this forum has driven with at least 1 beer in the system within the last month. Alcohol sales are on the rise like never before, people are drowning their sorrows and misery in it, lost and not willing to be found.

I voted no; I don't want to pay for it with my taxes. I say instant death, 12 gauge slug to the brain if you are found with alcohol in your system AT ALL while behind the wheel. That'd solve repeaters and those who are 'OK' to drive from the bar or party home, or from the home to the liquor STO and back.

 

[ihateiraq]

i dont know about the rest of you, but i drive better when im hammered. so putting that thing in my car would actually make the roads MORE dangerous.

 

[Bigum1969]

i dont know about the rest of you, but i drive better when im hammered. so putting that thing in my car would actually make the roads MORE dangerous.

I seriously hope you are kidding. Seriously.

 

[ihateiraq]

I seriously hope you are kidding. Seriously.

ill never tell.

 

[henktermaat]

This must be Nanny day

 

[jeremy]

This must be Nanny day

Nah I think it is either Nancy-Boy Day, or Smart*** Little **** Day...

 

[henktermaat]

Nah I think it is either Nancy-Boy Day, or Smart*** Little **** Day...

I was thinking nanny-govt. day