Should all vehicles have mandatory breathalyzers installed?

I'd support this because it would be a way to curb drunk driving. Some people on probation for DUI/DWI have to have a breathalyzer installed in their car as part of the sentence which will not start unless they blow in it. If all vehicles were mandatory equipped with these it'd probably help to decrease drunk driving, which is one of the major cause of fatal accidents.

 

Think about that. What is to keep a drunk from having a sober friend blow into the tube??

 

these devices are very easily to work around..you can start the car without even breathing into it ..just to need to understand it ..and then you can find the why around it...

 

So lets just assume everyone drinks and drives, ya makes perfect sense

 

So you're in the "if you're doing nothing wrong, what's to be afraid of so trample all over my liberty at will" crowd.

Awesome. The TSA, NSA and FEDS just love "conservatives" like you. Makes it easier to pretend we have a two-party system.

 

If he's got a sober friend then why would he insist on driving home himself?

 

A camera that takes a picture of the driver as he blows. It's how people on house arrest in Indiana are kept from having someone else blow into their breathalyzers (drinking is against the law while on house arrest in Indiana in certain cases)

 

I tend to yeah, unless it really constitutes a violation of liberty. Having a breathalyzer in a car for a non-drunk driver wouldn't affect a non-drunk driver in any way, so I have no problem with it.

Something like the NSA reading private emails is a different story, because it could adversely affect innocent people, so I feel differently about that.

Plus if it was mandatory, no one would really be 'forced' to buy a car to begin with if they objected - they could ride a bike, use public transportation, etc.
[/quote]

I fail to see your logic.

- - - Updated - - -

Not a good argument, by the same token you could say that having security alarms and cameras at a bank is "assuming everyone is a bank robber",

 

I don't drink alcohol. Never have.

But you want to penalize me to catch those who break the law.

It's today's America, I suppose.

 

Intoxicated people don't always think rationally.

 

I'm not sure I'd be okay with that, having cameras mandatory installed in a car - my idea was just to have a breathalyzer which wouldn't start if the person blowing in it was intoxicated.Having cameras in a car might be going a little too far.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't but most intoxicated people drive drunk just because they don't have a sober friend there to drive them, and don't want to sit in their car while they sober up.

 

Because you are thinking too narrowly. When you allow infringements like the one you posit here, you allow for all kinds of destruction of your liberty. As a supposed conservative, your attitude is shocking. You do not understand liberty if you think such an encroachment upon perfectly innocent citizens is fair game. It is just this kind of myopia that gave us the "patriot" act.

To the details of your subject, I find your willingness to impose unnecessary arbitrary costs upon free people to be tantamount to economic slavery, as though we don't already pay enough added costs in everything we buy due to government interference.

Have you even thought so far as to consider HOW MUCH this will cost people who would never even think of driving under the influence?

Shame on you.

 

You would be surprised how many drunk drivers HAD a sober friend, but choose to leave without them because they thought they were OK to drive.

 

I don't see this working. I think a better use of money would be paying bartenders to spot when someone's had enough, and make sure they're going to be okay before sending them in a taxi home.

 

Bartenders are instructed to 'cut off' a person if they look like they're intoxicated. The bars can get in trouble or even get their liquor license revoked if they let too many people drive home drunk.

The problem is many people can look like they're sober enough to drive (ex. they can walk straight, speak without slurring, etc) but still be over the legal limit.

 

Why do you care about the constitution? It sets a precedent of innocent until proven guilty. With what you've posted here you are clearly for a system of guilty until proven innocent. I just don't understand your logic at all, there is no consistency. You just arbitrarily pick and choose what is right and wrong here.

 

What good is a breathalyzer if you get in an accident smoking dope? Although if the price to put it on cars were cheap enough, why not.

 

Then would you say that security cameras and alarms at a bank amount to declaring all bank patrons "guilty until proven innocent"?

And there's nothing 'unconstitutional" about it because it doesn't involve the legal system at all.

It's about the end results - aka cost/benefit analysis, I take a pragmatic approach to politics. If something to have a large upside (ex. preventing many drunk driving deaths), and little downside (I can't think of next to no harm that this would cause to someone who abides by the law), then it seems like a good idea to me - unless it really does seriously violate or harm others' rights - and I can't think of any way which this would harm anyone, other than some radical libertarian/anarchist who thinks that traffic lights and stop signs are the equivalent of fascism.

What works in the real world seems better than consistency just for consistency's sake.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it wouldn't help with dope or other drugs because there's no 'blood/breath' test for drugs, but I suspect it'd help prevent drunk driving deaths - the only good argument against it was from Pennywise - he suggested that it'd cause the cost of cars to go up due to a breathalyzer being pre-installed in them, but I doubt it would be significant.

 

Generally I'd support this but for the fact that these devices do fail and unless they fail to disable the car the primary purpose could easily be defeated and if they do fail and disable the vehicle then a sober driver would be denied access to the vehicle. In an emergency, this could be fatal.

Perhaps, a restricter of sorts on the throttle. At the legal limit the car would start but could go no faster than, say, 35 mph. At 1.5 the legal limit the car would go no faster than 15 mph. Above that, the car could not be put in gear.

This might also help police find drunk drivers since a car doing 35 in a 55 zone is immediately suspicious.

how about modifying those theft deterrent systems , Lo-Jack, such that if you're drunk the Lo-Jack announces that as well as your position to the police.

It's not bad but I have to think about it some more.

 

Banks are private, and there is a difference between passive building security and forcing people to take an alcohol test every time they want to start their vehicle.

By that logic you could justify anything. We could ban having people play contact sports because it causes harm, same with running. Why even allow POVs? If we just have everyone use mass transit we will cut down on car accidents massively. DUIs would nearly be a thing of the past. Get rid of playgrounds so kids don't injure themselves. Ban guns and knives with sharp edges to cut down on accidental and intentional injury. Ban free speech so as not to insight people to violence.

It's a pretty precipitous path if you don't have any principals and just do what you think is best at the time. BTW everything I listed above follows the logic you have presented. It would save lives and have little downside. People don't need to be outdoors anyway; they could get hurt. They shoudl only be allowed outside if they have a valid reason (enjoying the sun and getting cancer isn't a valid reason).

 

No one's forcing them to purchase a vehicle. Public transportation exists. If they can demonstrate how it would cause measurable harm then good for them, but just because someone somewhere "doesn't like it" doesn't make it a bad idea - someone somewhere's going to dislike any legislation that gets passed.

Chicken little anyone?

You'd have to demonstrate how playing outside or playing contact sports would result in involuntary harm to others against their consent. If a person gets skin cancer for being out in the sun too much, that doesn't affect anyone but themselves. If a person chooses to play a contact sport, then they do so knowing the risks.

On the flip side if an innocent pedestrian gets hit by a drunk driver, that's a different story.

A lot of libertarians seem to base their entire philosophy on irrational and extreme paranoia - ex. stop signs and traffic lights are going to lead to people being rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

It's funny because a lot of libertarians argue that anyone who's a fraction more 'authoritarian than Mad Max just doesn't have any faith in humanity, but libertarians themselves have so little faith in humanity that they don't think that anyone who makes laws has enough common sense to see the difference between anti-drunk driving laws, and banning people from going outside to avoid skin cancer.

 

how about speed limit signs that keep vehicles in range from going faster then speed limit while we are at it, heck lets just make cars drive themselves or how about get rid of cars altogether

course where will the cities make up the lost revenue streams....

personally, I say arrest people after they drive recklessly, not because they might drive recklessly


.

 

If you want that go for it.

Or on the flip side, how about we just get rid of drunk driving laws altogether. Heck, let's get rid of all laws, including laws against murder, rape, pedophilia, etc - I mean some people do those things anyway, so there's no point in having laws at all. Let's be more like Somalia.

That's as rational as anything you've been saying.

 

Honestly...I suspect I could bypass the system in five minutes on everything I own except my Cherokee. Heck, my truck doesn't even need an electrical system to run, nor does my wife's Blazer.

 

ok, and if you want the breathalyzer installed in your car... go for it... I don't... and I do not even drink

.