• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandated breathalyzers in cars?

Should a car be required to have a breathalyzer?


  • Total voters
    34
Taxpayer funded, I pay for those roads. Why not something that records the results and can be checked by cops? Why not something which can transmit those results to the police should you fail too often? Hmm?

Because that truly WOULD be a Big Brother approach, and would constitute illegal search and seizure. Whereas a breathalyzer that you had to pass for your car to start would not.

Ikari said:
Tired driving is now on par with drunk driving for fatalities, texting and driving is well more dangerous.

The technology exists to monitor if you are driving while drunk. As far as I know, there are no such inventions (yet) to do the same for tired drivers, or drivers who are texting. If that technology is developed and becomes relatively cheap, I might well support the implementation of those things too.

Ikari said:
But we're caught in this DUI is the devil sort of stuff and running off on our righteous crusades against it without thinking of the negative consequences. The encroachment on privacy, constant monitoring by the authorities, and price of the device and its monthly fees is too much for this result.

As long as the results of the breathalyzer are not reported anywhere, the "encroachment on privacy" and "constant monitoring by authorities" arguments don't fly. So that leaves us with the price. It's rather subjective whether it's worth the cost, but let's frame it this way: Automobile accidents are one of the ten leading causes of death in the United States, and a good many of them are due to drunk driving. Approximately 11,000 people in the US die every year because of alcohol-related accidents (and many thousands of others are injured). As such, the expense would seem to me to be well worth it.

Ikari said:
Drunk driving causes something like 30% of the deaths (and that number is probably slightly exaggerated as they use data for anyone with BAC in it greater than 0), there's a good 70% left to try to deal with.

Are you suggesting that a 30% reduction in automobile fatalities would not be worth pursuing?

Ikari said:
And while for certain age groups, it can be one of the leading causes of death (dependent upon personal health), it's still something which the vast majority of people do not encounter.

The same can be said of virtually ANYTHING that kills people: most people will die of something else. That doesn't change the fact that automobile accidents (and specifically alcohol-related automobile accidents) are one of the leading causes of death.
 
Last edited:
Rather than a breathalizer, why not a GPS? Think about it: The highway patrol could sit in a booth somewhere, and know just how fast every car was going and where. They could send speeding tickets in the mail. They could coordinate it by computer with traffic lights, and catch every red light runner. If a car was stolen, they'd be able to pinpoint just where it is and catch the perps red handed. It would make the roads much safer.

Is that too big brotherish for anyone?
 
Rather than a breathalizer, why not a GPS? Think about it: The highway patrol could sit in a booth somewhere, and know just how fast every car was going and where. They could send speeding tickets in the mail. They could coordinate it by computer with traffic lights, and catch every red light runner. If a car was stolen, they'd be able to pinpoint just where it is and catch the perps red handed. It would make the roads much safer.

Is that too big brotherish for anyone?

A gps up every complainer's ass. hahahaha
 
Because that truly WOULD be a Big Brother approach, and would constitute illegal search and seizure. Whereas a breathalyzer that you had to pass for your car to start would not.

Yes, because the government is such a self-limiting force. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Give them an inch, they steal a mile. I can see the same arguments you're using now used to authorize constant monitoring techiniques. The small increase in safety is not worth our rights.

The technology exists to monitor if you are driving while drunk. As far as I know, there are no such inventions (yet) to do the same for tired drivers, or drivers who are texting. If that technology is developed and becomes relatively cheap, I might well support the implementation of those things too.

So because we have more technology, that excuses more invasive forms of monitoring. Great. Because tech will only get better with time and easier to impliment. I don't think I like where your argument goes.

As long as the results of the breathalyzer are not reported anywhere, the "encroachment on privacy" and "constant monitoring by authorities" arguments don't fly. So that leaves us with the price. It's rather subjective whether it's worth the cost, but let's frame it this way: Automobile accidents are one of the ten leading causes of death in the United States, and a good many of them are due to drunk driving. Approximately 11,000 people in the US die every year because of alcohol-related accidents (and many thousands of others are injured). As such, the expense would seem to me to be well worth it.

And to me, it's too much. There is no way to guarantee that it won't be used in the manners you don't like. It's nothing more than a stepping stone of government power grab and if you give them power, they will take more. The history of mankind is rife with data on the natural course of governments.

Are you suggesting that a 30% reduction in automobile fatalities would not be worth pursuing?

Not at the cost of liberty.

The same can be said of virtually ANYTHING that kills people: most people will die of something else. That doesn't change the fact that automobile accidents (and specifically alcohol-related automobile accidents) are one of the leading causes of death.

In certain age brackets, yes. It's not the overall killer (which is heart disease currently followed by obesity related diseases). All men die, not all men die free.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the government is such a self-limiting force. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Give them an inch, they steal a mile. I can see the same arguments you're using now used to authorize constant monitoring techiniques. The small increase in safety is not worth our rights.

Just because something COULD be expanded upon at some point in the future does not mean it WILL be. For example, it will be possible in the near future for seat belts to sense whether or not they are fastened and report the results to the police. Is the potential of future illegal searches a good argument against reasonable safety precautions? Of course not.

Opposing incremental threats to privacy is one thing. Opposing something that is no threat to privacy at all but might potentially become one in the future is completely different. A breathalyzer in your car does not, by itself, invade your privacy in any way whatsoever.

Ikari said:
So because we have more technology, that excuses more invasive forms of monitoring. Great. Because tech will only get better with time and easier to impliment. I don't think I like where your argument goes.

The government already mandates that you operate your car in certain ways; you aren't allowed to drive on the left side of the road, you aren't allowed to go 100 mph, and you aren't allowed to drive while intoxicated. And we all accept those laws. So what exactly is the big difference with more high-tech requirements? Just like those other things that we accept, they infringe on your "freedom" to be reckless in order to protect other motorists and pedestrians.

Ikari said:
And to me, it's too much. There is no way to guarantee that it won't be used in the manners you don't like. It's nothing more than a stepping stone of government power grab and if you give them power, they will take more. The history of mankind is rife with data on the natural course of governments.

Hopefully self-driving cars will soon make it a moot point. Then we can ban human drivers altogether. And that will be a great thing.

Ikari said:
Not at the cost of liberty.

What "liberty" would you be giving up? The liberty to operate your car while intoxicated? Why should you have that liberty?

You don't have the liberty to threaten the safety of others with your motor vehicle, and you never have. The only difference is that the technology has not existed to PREVENT you from doing so, until recently. The point of contention is to what DEGREE you should have the freedom to be a menace to society, not whether or not such a line exists.

Ikari said:
In certain age brackets, yes. It's not the overall killer (which is heart disease currently followed by obesity related diseases).

Auto fatalities are responsible for about 40,000 deaths per year. If they were their own category (the CDC lumps them in with all "accidents"), then they would be the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Should breathalysers become mandatory in new cars, I would stand to make a fortune selling bypass kits and instructions. Of course you'd get a tiny switch to turn it back on before vehicle inspections.
 
Back
Top Bottom