• 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
X Factor said:
What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and being distracted by a passenger, changing the radio, eating a burger, etc?
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. It is impossible to ban all activities which might distract a driver. And cell phone use in a car is no worse than eating or drinking or having noisy passengers in the car with you. Bans on texting are a great idea, since you can't do it without taking your eyes off the road. I'm even okay with requiring hands-free devices to be used, since having one hand tied up holding the phone can be a problem. But outlawing cell phone use altogether is just stupid, and not only that but it would be extremely hard to enforce.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anything accurate to prove this assertion ?
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wonder how the daughter felt about doing this and allowing the four year old "adult" to drive ?
Back in the 60s, seat belts were the "rage".
A ton of resistance, then in the 70s, the interlock.
Now this is where the regulations went too far - the ignition/seat belt interlock was legally repealed a year later.
So, is this "interlock" going too far ?
In truth, all the drivers pay the price incurred by the drunks..
10,000 deaths is quite the price....................
Been there and done that..
Lucky to be alive today.
 
Would just be more crap for me to sell to a scrap yard. As far as not being able to get a tag that is fine with me. I don't think we should be forced to have car insurance,tags or drivers licenses as its just another way for big brother to track us.
 
GoodOleBoy said:
Would just be more crap for me to sell to a scrap yard. As far as not being able to get a tag that is fine with me. I don't think we should be forced to have car insurance,tags or drivers licenses as its just another way for big brother to track us.
Click to expand...

You think mandating car insurance is just another way to track us? How about it's just another way to be responsible? Along with driving privileges come responsibilities.
 
I have a mixed feeling about this... I support putting it in for drivers who have had a DUI, but only during their probation period. Once people have served their time and their probation they should remove the breathalyzer from their car. DUI convicts are still individuals, we shouldn't treat them as eternally guilty people that will be monitored for life.
 
MaggieD said:
You think mandating car insurance is just another way to track us? How about it's just another way to be responsible? Along with driving privileges come responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Just part of an overall evil idea...
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If someone has been arrested for DUI then sure then they should have to have one installed for a certain period of time. But to mandate all cars have them then no because it assumes all people are drunk drivers without any probable cause.
 
jamesrage said:
If someone has been arrested for DUI then sure then they should have to have one installed for a certain period of time. But to mandate all cars have them then no because it assumes all people are drunk drivers without any probable cause.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that putting them in all cars is a bit excessive and not called for. You shouldn't be searched everytime you try to use your own property. There are punishments with DUI that require these interlock devices. Not that they can't be beat with a simple air compressor, but whatever. They are expensive (well at least the State charges a lot), the install is pretty expensive along with the monthly fee (yes, they charge a monthly fee). Who do you think is going to pay that? Not the government, not the auto manufacturers.
 
No.

Not ever.

If a man doesn't have a DUI conviction, it's a gross violation of the presumption of innocence.

If a man has a DUI on his record, and he reoffends, he should be put in prison for a long long time.

Eating fast food while driving kills more people than drunks. Where's the move to install burrito detectors?

See Here.
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

You apparently know a person who is not only an absolutely horrible parent, but a worthless human being as well.
 
Ignition interlock devices for people who have been convicted of DUI, and paid for by the offender... yes, absolutely.

Ignition interlock devices for everyone and added to the general cost of driving in one way or another, no, never.

Most accidents are caused by the very thing that would lead us to require ignition interlocks on everyone's car: stupidity.
 
molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

What a douchbag. I wonder how he'd feel if he killed the little girl while driving drunk?
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A waste? Explain
Click to expand...

Would I have to have one eventhough I have never had an alcoholic drink in my life?

Why don't you get the manufacturers to install them from the factory.

Good luck.
 
Caine said:
You apparently know a person who is not only an absolutely horrible parent, but a worthless human being as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a pretty good description. He racked up something like 10 DUI arrests in 2 years, and somehow managed to still be allowed to legally drive under certain circumstances. Then a different judge put him away for 5 years. I was fairly happy to hear it.
 
In principle, yes, I could definitely support something like this. A huge portion of auto fatalities are alcohol-related. If the technology is effective enough to prevent the person from driving while intoxicated, without lots of "false alarms" for sober people, then I absolutely support it. It could save tens of thousands of lives per year.

I think people dramatically underestimate how dangerous an automobile is. For most of us, it's by far the most dangerous thing we own.
 
jamesrage said:
But to mandate all cars have them then no because it assumes all people are drunk drivers without any probable cause.
Click to expand...

Mandated breathalyzers don't necessarily make that assumption, as long as the results of the breathalyzer aren't reported to the police (which I would oppose for the same reason you do). If you just have to pass a breathalyzer to start your car, then I don't think the "probable cause" stuff really applies because you aren't being arrested or searched by the police; it's just something you have to do like turning the key in the ignition if you want to go anywhere.

Although the civil libertarian in me initially bristled at the idea when I heard it, I recognize that there is a balance to be struck since roads are very dangerous places. If the only person at risk was oneself, I might be less inclined to support it...but drunk drivers pose a risk to others on the road too. And since it is such a HUGE problem in this country (tens of thousands of fatalities due to drunk driving every year), I'm going to come down on the side of mandatory breathalyzers.

Assuming, as I said before, that the technology is actually effective at keeping drunks off the road without false alarms for sober people.
 
I voted for the installation of burrito detectors.
 
I had a friend that got one installed in his car mandated by a judge. We worked at the same place. Sometimes it would take him 2 hours to get his car started so he could drive home. He also had to drive over to Irving once a month to get this detector calibrated. That cost him $35.00 each time.

He had to blow into it with just the right velocity, for just the right amount of time to get the thing to register sober. Each failed attempt caused him to wait 20 minutes before the detector would reset so that he could try again. This was circa 1998, so I don't know how much the technology has improved. I do know that along with no helmet (I wear one), no seatbelt, and no airbag, I won't be getting a Breathalyzer installed on my bike anytime soon.
 
Mickey Shane said:
I had a friend that got one installed in his car mandated by a judge. We worked at the same place. Sometimes it would take him 2 hours to get his car started so he could drive home. He also had to drive over to Irving once a month to get this detector calibrated. That cost him $35.00 each time.

He had to blow into it with just the right velocity, for just the right amount of time to get the thing to register sober. Each failed attempt caused him to wait 20 minutes before the detector would reset so that he could try again. This was circa 1998, so I don't know how much the technology has improved. I do know that along with no helmet (I wear one), no seatbelt, and no airbag, I won't be getting a Breathalyzer installed on my bike anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Did he sit in the car fuming (becomming mad at the world) or did the use his brain and think that he should act as a responsible adult ?
A smart man would take a 20 minute walk and think about things at the same time.
 
Kandahar said:
In principle, yes, I could definitely support something like this. A huge portion of auto fatalities are alcohol-related. If the technology is effective enough to prevent the person from driving while intoxicated, without lots of "false alarms" for sober people, then I absolutely support it. It could save tens of thousands of lives per year.

I think people dramatically underestimate how dangerous an automobile is. For most of us, it's by far the most dangerous thing we own.
Click to expand...

It is a large chunk of momentum for sure. However, the portion of auto fatalities which are alcohol related has been decreasing (as a percentage) and now falling asleep/tired driving is right up there with DUI. End of the day, you will never have zero cases of DUI. Not so long as drinking is legal and driving is legal. It's ridiculous to think it can get down to that level. And in the end, I'm not willing to accept these sorts of infringements upon our rights; these aggressive style Big Brother searches before we can use our property or drive on the roads that we pay for. Drinking and driving can be dangerous, but the government is more so. I'd much rather take my chances with a few drunks on the road than begin to authorize horrible abuses of power and constant monitoring of the People by government goons.
 
earthworm said:
Did he sit in the car fuming (becomming mad at the world) or did the use his brain and think that he should act as a responsible adult ?
A smart man would take a 20 minute walk and think about things at the same time.
Click to expand...

No, a smart man would use an air compressor.
 
It's too bad they haven't come up with an idiocy detector. A working one would eliminate 99% of all traffic accidents and make the highway patrol redundant.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Next they'll put a breathalyzer on your gun, your beer bottle, and your pecker, to make sure you're not too drunk to use those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom