Feds Looking Into Mandatory Breathalizers

feds looking into mandatory breathalizers

Eric Peters' blog at the National Motorists Association explores efforts to make breathalyzers mandatory on all U.S vehicles. Peters zeros-in on the Driver Alcohol Detection System For Safety (DADSS), a $10m taxpayer-funded partnership between the industry-funded Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DADSS is hot for new, "less intrusive" breathalyzers; specifically gizmos that measure blood alcohol content (BAC) through the driver's skin (via steering wheel-mounted sensors). While acknowledging America's 9k annual drunk driving deaths, Peters is not pleased at the prospect of treating every motorist like a convicted drunk driver, He's also displeased that consumers would be expected to shoulder the additional costs of this new "standard equipment." More proof that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 13 comments
  • Yankinwaoz Yankinwaoz on Jun 25, 2008

    It will never happen. There is simply too much money being earned by the DUI industry to actually stop DUIs from happening. Every DUI results in at least a $10k cash infusion from normally law abiding (read - working and tax paying) citizens. Between all the lawyer fees, fines, special fines, fees, mandates, insurance premiums, and so on, there is a lot of incentive to keep this "industry" humming along nicely as it is. If they really, really, wanted to stop DUIs. Then they would simply give mandatory 20 year prison sentences for the offense. No fines. No money involved to taint the objectiveness of law enforcement. It may sound harsh, but I guarantee that no one would risk drinking and driving. Those that do, the hard core alcoholics, will eventually be caught and then sit and rot in prison.

  • Robert Schwartz Robert Schwartz on Jun 25, 2008

    Any thing that can be beaten by a hand driven air pump and a pair of rubber gloves just isn't worth doing.

  • Golden2husky Golden2husky on Jun 25, 2008
    I have always liked this. Take the car, make the debt on the car non-dischargeable ... I have a real problem with the government taking property like this. What would be acceptable is a massive fine, like the $10,000 previously mentioned. That would be a good deterrent. If you can't pony up the bucks, then take the car as collateral.

  • Ihatetrees Ihatetrees on Jun 25, 2008
    golden2huskey: I have a real problem with the government taking property like this. What would be acceptable is a massive fine, like the $10,000 previously mentioned. That would be a good deterrent. If you can’t pony up the bucks, then take the car as collateral. I completely agree. Furthermore, the often law makes it much easier to take a paid off 5 year old car than a 1 year old car that's halfway thru a lease. Leasing firms have the deep pockets (and political connections) to fight back.

Next