• 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

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Should breathalyzers in cars be required?

You would have to get one installed prior to getting a new tag; if you didn't you can't get a tag.

I imagine the government(s) would have to pay for these to be installed, but it would be worth it. Or maybe insurance would pay for it.

I am betting car accidents go down by what, 90%? DUI's would become nearly obsolete.
 
Last edited:
i wouldn't mind it in place for someone with a DUI - but yes, it's a state decision. for the general populace? no need. most accidents aren't caused by alcohol, they are caused by sheer idiocy.
 
I voted no assuming you meant everyone has to get one installed. That wont help alcoholics and those so inclined just wont use it or wont pay attention to it. The lionshare of drivers thankfully do not drive impaired.
I would much rather see a national total ban on cellphone use in any form by drivers while driving. Cellphones are the biggest vehiclular murderers barring none in the country
 
Should breathalyzers in cars be required?

You would have to get one installed prior to getting a new tag; if you didn't you can't get a tag.

I imagine the government(s) would have to pay for these to be installed, but it would be worth it. Or maybe insurance would pay for it.

I am betting car accidents go down by what, 90%? DUI's would become nearly obsolete.

They are so incredibly easy to by pass it wouldn't be worth it.
 
I would like to see it be a mandate for anyone who has had a DUI. Other folks? Too restrictive.
 
On purely practical note, it would be a bad idea because current technology isn't yet good enough. On a theoretical level, I am rather torn. I personally would be willing to have a breathalyzer installed if it meant a nation-wide decrease in the number of deaths on injury from drunk driving. However, I have doubts about the consequences of allowing such intrusion into the lives of citizens.
 
Should breathalyzers in cars be required?

You would have to get one installed prior to getting a new tag; if you didn't you can't get a tag.

I imagine the government(s) would have to pay for these to be installed, but it would be worth it. Or maybe insurance would pay for it.

I am betting car accidents go down by what, 90%? DUI's would become nearly obsolete.

I vote no. A complete waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.

What's next? A test of one's reflexes before the key works? Maybe a tricky little vision test?
 
Breathalyzers require you to pass the test or you can't start the engine.

Stats Drunk Driving Accident Statistics: Alcohol-Related Car Crash Deaths

Actually, not to get hyper technical on ya, but breathalyzers merely record the blood alcohol content (BAC). What you're actually referring to is an ignition interlock device. I support the use of the ignition interlock, but only for DUI offenders (well actually I support confiscating their cars, but that's a different topic).
 
I vote no. A complete waste of hundreds of millions of dollars.

What's next? A test of one's reflexes before the key works? Maybe a tricky little vision test?

A waste? Explain
 
I would like to see it be a mandate for anyone who has had a DUI. Other folks? Too restrictive.
i would support this if the person was a repeat offender, not just for one convicition.
 
I voted no assuming you meant everyone has to get one installed. That wont help alcoholics and those so inclined just wont use it or wont pay attention to it. The lionshare of drivers thankfully do not drive impaired.
I would much rather see a national total ban on cellphone use in any form by drivers while driving. Cellphones are the biggest vehiclular murderers barring none in the country

We have a cell phone ban in the city I live in. I absolutely oppose it and, yes, I've have very nearly been creamed by some guy driving a truck and talking on his cell. I laid down, like, 20 feet of skid to avoid the accident. Even so, I appreciate the irony that I could get behind some guy who's clearly driving drunk but that it would be illegal for me to call the police on him on my cell.
 
We have a cell phone ban in the city I live in. I absolutely oppose it and, yes, I've have very nearly been creamed by some guy driving a truck and talking on his cell. I laid down, like, 20 feet of skid to avoid the accident. Even so, I appreciate the irony that I could get behind some guy who's clearly driving drunk but that it would be illegal for me to call the police on him on my cell.

You oppose or support that cell phone ban?
 
Despite the fact that I am death on drunk drivers, I voted no and here's why. Although a mandatory breathalyzer for someone who has a history of DUI would be helpful, forcing everyone to use one would keep some people with no alcohol abuse from driving. In order for the ignition to work, the driver would have to blow hard into the machine for several seconds. People with advanced lung disease and certain other medical problems wouldn't be able to do that. They simply don't have enough breath.

So I'm against it.
 
I think it's a good idea in theory - but I don't like the idea of more or less putting that restriction on people who have done nothing to deserve it. As DiAnna pointed out it would be problematic for individuals with any form of respiratory illness. There would be costs to install, costs to maintain and so forth. Those limitations are fine for people who have a history of driving drunk but is essentially unfair to those who follow the law(s).
 
A waste? Explain

Actually, as I tried to formulate an answer for this, I've changed my mind. Ha! A woman's perrogative. I looked up some stats to find that, in 2009, over 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers...but, of course, that doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm with you. Why not? The logistics might be a bit difficult, but I'd be willing to pay for it. Your idea of "the government" paying for it doesn't make sense -- neither does insurance companies paying for it make sense...at least to me. But all new cars mandated to have it by 2015? Sounds like a good idea.
 
Despite the fact that I am death on drunk drivers, I voted no and here's why. Although a mandatory breathalyzer for someone who has a history of DUI would be helpful, forcing everyone to use one would keep some people with no alcohol abuse from driving. In order for the ignition to work, the driver would have to blow hard into the machine for several seconds. People with advanced lung disease and certain other medical problems wouldn't be able to do that. They simply don't have enough breath.

So I'm against it.

How about we make an exception for those people?

Most laws have exceptions so that they an function.
 
Actually, as I tried to formulate an answer for this, I've changed my mind. Ha! A woman's perrogative. I looked up some stats to find that, in 2009, over 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers...but, of course, that doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm with you. Why not? The logistics might be a bit difficult, but I'd be willing to pay for it. Your idea of "the government" paying for it doesn't make sense -- neither does insurance companies paying for it make sense...at least to me. But all new cars mandated to have it by 2015? Sounds like a good idea.

One way to pay for it-raise alcohol taxes lol
 
No, this is a dumb idea. Some states already mandate ignition interlocks for DUI offenders, which I'd be okay with, but even then, they're too easy to bypass. I know a guy who used to have his 4-year-old daughter blow into it so he could drive drunk.
 
We have a cell phone ban in the city I live in. I absolutely oppose it and, yes, I've have very nearly been creamed by some guy driving a truck and talking on his cell. I laid down, like, 20 feet of skid to avoid the accident. Even so, I appreciate the irony that I could get behind some guy who's clearly driving drunk but that it would be illegal for me to call the police on him on my cell.

Cell phones shouldn't be used by drivers. They take too much attention away from the road, even with a bluetooth headset. People want to use their phones while driving because its easier and faster than stopping, but their desire for convenience should not be more important than the other driver's safety. People are really irresponsible regarding their cell phone use.
 
No, this is a dumb idea. Some states already mandate ignition interlocks for DUI offenders, which I'd be okay with, but even then, they're too easy to bypass. I know a guy who used to have his 4-year-old daughter blow into it so he could drive drunk.

That's even to much, just get a squeeze bottle and hook the straw to the interlock tube.
Problem solved.

Or you could just electronically disable it.
 
Cell phones shouldn't be used by drivers. They take too much attention away from the road, even with a bluetooth headset. People want to use their phones while driving because its easier and faster than stopping, but their desire for convenience should not be more important than the other driver's safety. People are really irresponsible regarding their cell phone use.

What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and being distracted by a passenger, changing the radio, eating a burger, etc?
 
Should breathalyzers in cars be required?

You would have to get one installed prior to getting a new tag; if you didn't you can't get a tag.

I imagine the government(s) would have to pay for these to be installed, but it would be worth it. Or maybe insurance would pay for it.

I am betting car accidents go down by what, 90%? DUI's would become nearly obsolete.

90%? Falling asleep while driving is right up there with DUI.
 
Back
Top Bottom