[Time] Coming Soon: A Breathalyzer in Every Car?

[Air Langhi]

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...907493,00.html

Nearly 13,000 Americans die in traffic accidents every year. Now Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is opening a new front in its war on drunk drivers, and it's getting help from the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

A new highway bill pending before Congress would instruct all 50 states to require all motorists convicted of driving under the influence to equip their cars with interlock systems that shut down a vehicle when a measured amount of alcohol is detected. (See the most important cars of all time.)

There are already about 150,000 interlock systems now in cars in the U.S., placed there for drivers with multiple DUI convictions. But the proposed mandate would expand the use of interlock systems exponentially; MADD's statistics indicate that nearly 1.5 million Americans are arrested annually on DUI charges, making it the No. 1 crime for which Americans are arrested.

States wouldn't have to abide by the ruling, but there would be heavy pressure to conform, since states that don't adopt the mandate could lose their highway funds. "The national 21 minimum drinking age and the .08% law [for allowable alcohol in the bloodstream] both resulted from federal highway sanctions. History tells us that this approach works," says Laura Dean-Mooney of MADD. So far only 11 states require interlocks for anyone with one conviction who is currently driving on a DUI-restricted license.

Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says. (Watch TIME's video: "Beer Pong Strikes Back.")

Like those "Objects may be closer ..." warnings on outside car mirrors, opponents warn that brave new technology may be nearer than it appears. Nissan is now testing various systems that don't even require a Breathalyzer to detect drinking. One system uses a tiny camera to observe facial expressions, another system being tested checks blood alcohol levels though sensors when the driver grasps the shift control and a third system uses the car's internal computer to calculate if a motorist is steering erratically. Ford already has a system that allows parents to limit the speed of a vehicle driven by a youthful motorist, and Mercedes-Benz's new E-Class comes with a system that issues an audible warning if the driver gets drowsy.

MADD president Chuck Hurley doesn't deny he would like to see such systems put into service, but says wider use of such technology is 10 years off, and MADD isn't calling for automakers to install it now. Current Breathalyzer technology, he said, would make a big difference almost immediately. In New Mexico, for example, DUI fatalities have been reduced 35% since the state began requiring all convicted DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock device. "Studies have shown alcohol ignition interlocks to be effective in reducing recidivism," concurs Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

In continuing to look for ways to curb drunk driving, MADD is emphasizing its negative economic impact. MADD estimates that drunk driving now accounts for 18% of the nation's auto-insurance bill and 20% of all emergency-room costs that are never reimbursed, as well as 16% of all probation costs and 6% of all jail cells used in the U.S.

[JayZ750]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says. (Watch TIME's video: "Beer Pong Strikes Back.")

Not exactly a strong argument here. "Hey, no we won't be able to drink and drive!"

Um, yeah, that's kind of the point.

I'm not even that concerned about some of the more "invasive" technologies on the horizon. The facial expression one sounds kind of stupid, but if the technology actual works correctly - i.e. prevents one from driving when they are drunk or legally over the limit, then I just don't see what the big deal is.

[Air Langhi]

I like this idea. Makes sure you don't get a DUI, and if you do get a DUI you can sue the manufacturer.

[pirc1]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi I like this idea. Makes sure you don't get a DUI, and if you do get a DUI you can sue the manufacturer.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but there will be people who will bypass the technology I am sure.

[lpbman]

My concerns are twofold, what about a malfunction where nothing you do will let you drive your car... and what about driving your vehicle on your own property?

It may be illegal (I don't know) to get wasted and do donuts in your front yard but it shouldn't be, assuming you aren't disturbing anyone else.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi In New Mexico, for example, DUI fatalities have been reduced 35% since the state began requiring all convicted DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock device. "Studies have shown alcohol ignition interlocks to be effective in reducing recidivism," concurs Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

I'd be interested in the details of the study - but if that 35% number is scientifically sound, this seems like a great idea. Fairly simple and easy to implement and can cut DUI deaths by 35%?

Originally Posted by Air Langhi In continuing to look for ways to curb drunk driving, MADD is emphasizing its negative economic impact. MADD estimates that drunk driving now accounts for 18% of the nation's auto-insurance bill and 20% of all emergency-room costs that are never reimbursed, as well as 16% of all probation costs and 6% of all jail cells used in the U.S.

This is probably the line they should push, though again, I'd be interested in how they got to these numbers. But if those are remotely accurate numbers, this thing seems like a pretty easy thing to justify. That said, all these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt without knowing their source.

[GladiatoRowdy]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having interlocks on all vehicles, but the fourth amendment might interfere with the government mandating such a change.

[SamFisher]

I actually would like it - as long as the technology is sound and doesn't inadvertently lock people out. I'm terminally afraid of getting a DUI or worse, hell, when of the main reasons I live in NYC because I like to drink beer and I don't like to drive places to do it.

[BetterThanI]

Originally Posted by JayZ750 Not exactly a strong argument here. "Hey, no we won't be able to drink and drive!" Um, yeah, that's kind of the point.

Exactly what I thought when I read that sentence. You shouldn't "happen to have a beer" (which makes it sound almost accidental) and then drive home. You shouldn't drink and drive PERIOD. Not one drink. Ever. Other people's lives are more valuable than your feeling of inconvenience. Three words: Call a cab.

Besides, the article title is very misleading. MADD isn't calling for a "breathalyzer in every car", just the cars belonging to convicted drunk drivers. The only people mentioning "every car" is the American Beverage Institute, using scare tactics to shoot down an effort to prevent crime, stop accidents, and save lives. How noble.

[juicystream]

I would prefer to not have to breath into a breathalyzer everytime I get in my car. I almost never drink anymore, and I never drive afterwards. If my insurance offers me a discount to have this technology on my car, ok.

I'd much prefer anyone convicted of DUI be required to have this installed in their car, but who pays for that?

[Major]

Originally Posted by juicystream I would prefer to not have to breath into a breathalyzer everytime I get in my car. I almost never drink anymore, and I never drive afterwards. If my insurance offers me a discount to have this technology on my car, ok.

To be fair, no one is actually proposing that. It was just a scare tactic some opposition brought up.

Originally Posted by juicystream I'd much prefer anyone convicted of DUI be required to have this installed in their car, but who pays for that?

I imagine you could add it to the fine that a DUI conviction comes with, but I'm not sure how much those things cost.

[juicystream]

Originally Posted by BetterThanI Exactly what I thought when I read that sentence. You shouldn't "happen to have a beer" (which makes it sound almost accidental) and then drive home. You shouldn't drink and drive PERIOD. Not one drink. Ever. Other people's lives are more valuable than your feeling of inconvenience. Three words: Call a cab. Besides, the article title is very misleading. MADD isn't calling for a "breathalyzer in every car", just the cars belonging to convicted drunk drivers. The only people mentioning "every car" is the American Beverage Institute, using scare tactics to shoot down an effort to prevent crime, stop accidents, and save lives. How noble.

The first statement is unfair, considering it takes about 3-4 beers to be illegal in most states. The economic impact of an adult not being able to have one drink at a restaraunt and not drive home would be massive.

Edit: I don't they are proposing a system that would prevent having one beer.

The second statement is absolutely spot on.

[Rashmon]

I think it's a good idea but what's stopping Joe Alcoholic from having his 8 year old kid blow into the Breathalyzer?

[rhadamanthus]

MADD is ****ing nuts. Their own founder left the organization after they basically became just a fake front for the prohibition crowd.

That being said, I think convicted drunk drivers should be heavily penalizedd (certainly more than they are now). Having a breathalyzer in their car would be a good start.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by Rashmon I think it's a good idea but what's stopping Joe Alcoholic from having his 8 year old kid blow into the Breathalyzer?

This measure won't stop drinking and driving, but hopefully it would have a major impact. We won't be able to have the police stop enforcing DUI laws, but we will reduce the number of people able to drive drunk...at least more than once.

[London'sBurning]

Originally Posted by lpbman My concerns are twofold, what about a malfunction where nothing you do will let you drive your car... and what about driving your vehicle on your own property? It may be illegal (I don't know) to get wasted and do donuts in your front yard but it shouldn't be, assuming you aren't disturbing anyone else.

Cars malfunction already. I think a breathalyzer malfunctioning is going to happen, but probably no more than your typical car breakdowns.

[Air Langhi]

Originally Posted by rhadamanthus That being said, I think convicted drunk drivers should be heavily penalizedd (certainly more than they are now). Having a breathalyzer in their car would be a good start.

Drunk driving is pretty heavily penalized. I don't believe larger penalties will help since when you are drunk you don't think straight. I think the better solution is to offer some sort of public transport.

[lpbman]

Originally Posted by London'sBurning Cars malfunction already. I think a breathalyzer malfunctioning is going to happen, but probably no more than your typical car breakdowns.

Well sure, but what is the remedy for this... getting your car towed to a dealer or some chip flashed or how does that work?

Also... can these things be fooled by blowing up a balloon before you go drinking?

[rhadamanthus]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi Drunk driving is pretty heavily penalized. I don't believe larger penalties will help since when you are drunk you don't think straight. I think the better solution is to offer some sort of public transport.

Agreed. But that does not make larger penalties any less important in my opinion.

[juicystream]

Originally Posted by lpbman Also... can these things be fooled by blowing up a balloon before you go drinking?

I never would have thought about that.