Report: Congress mulling in-car alcohol detectors

[CRXican]

The New York Times reports that the U.S. Congress is considering a six-fold increase in the annual funding of in-car devices to detect drunk drivers. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program's budget would increase from $2 million per year to $12 million for the next five years, likely expediting the development of an effective device.

History suggests that such a device would save thousands of lives. In 2008 alone, nearly 12,000 people died in alcohol-impaired car crashes. Many of those deaths would likely be preventable if there were a way for a vehicle system to seamlessly detect elevated alcohol levels in drivers. Scientists are working on a device that could instantly detect a driver's blood alcohol level by reading alcohol levels on the breath or use a light beam to assess alcohol levels on the skin.

Program Director Susan Ferguson says that said device should be "very fast, very accurate, highly reliable and precise," adding that achieving a high level of precision is going to take a lot of money. Ferguson feels that the alcohol detection system could be the safety equivalent of the next seatbelt, suggesting that it could save 8,000 to 9,000 lives per year.

A total of 13 automakers are behind the project as well, and the goal is for drivers to voluntarily add the mechanism to their vehicles as an added safety measure. We're guessing that adding such a system could greatly reduce the cost to insure the vehicle, giving drivers a financial incentive to add the device. Of course, adding the cost of the device to new cars will likely cost automakers (and in turn, consumers) a fair bit of money, but the hope is that reduced insurance costs could cover the difference.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/28/report-congress-mulling-in-car-alcohol-detectors/7#comments

 

[Patranus]

Um. If consumers want this product the cost of development should be passed on to those who purchase the product not subsidized by taxpayers.

 

[Balt]

A total of 13 automakers are behind the project as well, and the goal is for drivers to voluntarily add the mechanism to their vehicles as an added safety measure.

No thanks. Maybe on my child's car, if I had one. :hmm:

 

[Bill Brasky]

I'd be fine with these being mandatory in all vehicles, but I'm biased since I've known so many people injured by other drunk drivers.

 

[CRXican]

I don't think it will happen. DUI revenue is too great.

 

[techs]

Hey, if it would lower my insurance rates more than the cost of the device, absolutely I would get one.

 

[bignateyk]

Wait, what exactly would this thing do? Simply inform you of your BAC? Lock you out from turning on the ignition? Report you to the cops?

Why would anyone voluntarily add something that might get them in trouble.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is something I can get behind. A technological solution to a human problem. Full steam ahead.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Wait, what exactly would this thing do? Simply inform you of your BAC? Lock you out from turning on the ignition? Report you to the cops?

Why would anyone voluntarily add something that might get them in trouble.

They should implement an ignition lock and make it standard on all new cars like they do with all new safety features.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't think it will happen. DUI revenue is too great.

DUI revenue is local.

Costs of DUI to society is greater.

 

[Patranus]

This is something I can get behind. A technological solution to a human problem. Full steam ahead.

There was a technological solution to the Germans problem as well.........

Just because technology can solve a perceived problem doesn't make it right or necessary in the free society.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

DUI revenue is local.

Costs of DUI to society is greater.

I don't follow please elaborate.

 

[CRXican]

DUI revenue is local.

Costs of DUI to society is greater.

what are those costs?

 

[waggy]

DUI revenue is local.

Costs of DUI to society is greater.

and the government cares about that now?


This will start out voluntary and people will get it because there is a tax/insurance break. Then it will just be standard in all cars.

 

[blurredvision]

I'd be much more behind a law requiring all new cars being sold in the United States be fitted with some kind of breathalyser in order to start rather than the stupid seat belt laws that are in place right now.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

There was a technological solution to the Germans problem as well.........

Just because technology can solve a perceived problem doesn't make it right or necessary in the free society.

So you also disagree with airbags and seat belts being mandatory?

 

[bignateyk]

So you also disagree with airbags and seat belts being mandatory?

I have more of a problem with airbags and seatbelts being mandatory than I do with a breathalyser being mandatory.

The only time I think seatbelts should be mandatory are for people under 18.

 

[AreaCode707]

Zenmervolt, Orsorum and I got into a fight about this the other night, in person. Heh.

 

[Patranus]

Zenmervolt, Orsorum and I got into a fight about this the other night, in person. Heh.

Were you drunk? LOL

 

[IceBergSLiM]

For those that are against it being mandatory then they should build in way to register with the dmv that you are disabling the tool . DMV provides disabling code. When your plate is run by police you are flagged as having disabled the tool. On a traffic stop if you are found to be driving under the influence you face an additional charge for driving dui in a vehicle where the tool has been disabled and you will receive much stiffer penalties.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Wait, what exactly would this thing do? Simply inform you of your BAC? Lock you out from turning on the ignition? Report you to the cops?

Why would anyone voluntarily add something that might get them in trouble.

This would be the smart thing to do for the government at least... i mean from their perspective. Just cracking down is retarded. This shouldn't be subsidized unless you're gonna make it a revenue maker... in which case I would have many mixed views about this.

 

[rcpratt]

I have more of a problem with airbags and seatbelts being mandatory than I do with a breathalyser being mandatory.

The only time I think seatbelts should be mandatory are for people under 18.

I agree. Dumb people should be able to kill themselves if they want to. Killing others because they're drunk? Not cool.

 

[Jassi]

There was a technological solution to the Germans problem as well.........

Just because technology can solve a perceived problem doesn't make it right or necessary in the free society.

Congratulations, your post has been nominated for the Goodwin Medal for Excellence in Debate!

 

[Gibsons]

1. blow up balloon
2. get hammered
3. get behind wheel, use balloon for breathalyzer
4. kill someone

nah, I bet most drunk drivers wouldn't think that far ahead.

 

[spaceman]

dumb
f-d this nipple nanny bullshit