Why Doesn't Every Car Come With A Breathalyzer?

Part of me agrees with you @HereticBD, but the downside to that is you're majorly inconveniencing those who don't drive drunk in the first place with the cost of the equipment, renewal and maintenance. It ain't cheap, it won't get cheaper, and I just don't think it's practical or fair for millions of innocent people to be inconvenienced with even more vehicle maintenance. You'd also be pissing off a lot of people in cold climates, as the device takes a while to warm up in winter. There's also other issues, such as blowing "drunk" and not being able to start your vehicle after you've used mouthwash, and yes this is a real thing because it happened to me when I was using my friend's vehicle, who has one installed.

That said, my friend is a good example of someone who should be required to have a breathalyzer installed in his vehicle for life.

I'd be more in favor of having them installed for at least 5-10 years for someone caught drunk driving way over the limit, or a year or two for a bit over the limit depending on the circumstances. Don't like it? Then don't drive drunk. If you fuck up again after that then you lose the privilege to have a license and drive.
 
So what happens when the god damned thing doesn't work when I'm at an unmanned rest area in North Dakota in February at 2am?
Plus it would keep people from buying new cars.
Plus I'll just hack the damned thing. I don't drink and drive but still I wouldn't want to fiddle with this stupid thing.

But feel free to install one for yourself.
 
pcptornado said:
Part of me agrees with you @HereticBD, but the downside to that is you're majorly inconveniencing those who don't drive drunk in the first place with the cost of the equipment, renewal and maintenance. It ain't cheap, it won't get cheaper, and I just don't think it's practical or fair for millions of innocent people to be inconvenienced with even more vehicle maintenance. You'd also be pissing off a lot of people in cold climates, as the device takes a while to warm up in winter. There's also other issues, such as blowing "drunk" and not being able to start your vehicle after you've used mouthwash, and yes this is a real thing because it happened to me when I was using my friend's vehicle, who has one installed.
Click to expand...

As for the mouthwash thing, it wouldn't be zero tolerance breathalyzer. It would be the legal limit. Mouthwash ain't going to set that off.

As far as inconvenience goes, it's really not that bad. You'd get used to it, like anything else. I've gotta bring my two year old car in for an emissions test, so I can buy a pointless sticker to put on my license plate. That's inconvenient, but what can you do? At least with this, there would be a purpose behind it.

I'd be more in favor of having them installed for at least 5-10 years for someone caught drunk driving way over the limit, or a year or two for a bit over the limit depending on the circumstances. Don't like it? Then don't drive drunk. If you fuck up again after that then you lose the privilege to have a license and drive.
Click to expand...

We have that now though. However, in a lot of cases, drunk drivers don't get caught until they've killed someone. We need more prevention, because the punishments clearly aren't working.
 
This is such a half baked idea, not sure where to begin.

Since you mentioned RIDE programs, I'll assume you live in Ontario, Canada. People who need an ignition interlock in Ontario need to take their car in to authorized shops to have the device inspected for tampering and I think have the data or at least a report sent to the police, at their own cost, so it's not a 1 time fee. It's basically leased to the owner at a cost of something like $100/month by the shop. There's literally 2 companies that are authorized to do the install and inspections in Ontario - most cities (including Toronto) only have 1 dealer. The capacity to pull every vehicle off the road for an inspection every couple months would be more ridiculous then the Drive Clean program. I'm sure it's set up similar all across Canada and the States as well. If somebody isn't inspecting the device regularly it's kind of a pointless measure, because someone who drives drunk is probably going to be willing to figure out how to disable or remove the device. I think people with an interlock condition have to have it inspected every couple months, but don't quote me on that.

It's simply punishing people who haven't done anything wrong, and it's not a if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about scenario, because it's actually costing them money. It would also give police another BS reason to pull people over to check for a working breathalyzer. No thanks.
 
On one hand, I think it would greatly reduce drunk driving incidents to almost nothing. On the other hand, how hard is it to beat one of those? Can you blow air into it with a device and will it still start? Like a syringe type thing without the needle. Could someone use that to start the car?

That said, I don't think anyone wants the hassle of that shit in their car.
 
Government Wants that DUI money.. They don't really want it all eliminated.
 
HereticBD said:
Think about it for a second. Drunk driving is rampant and always has/will be. We always hear about the government implementing new methods to stop it. Whether it be RIDE programs, increased fines, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Why the hell don't manufacturers of motor vehicles stop it at the source? We have a seat belt to stop us from flying through the windshield. We have strategically placed cup holders that stop our hot coffee from spilling on our laps. We have a fucking computer we can talk to if we ever get lost. How in the shit can't we stop drunk driving? I mean, what the fuck?

The technology is there. It's not that expensive. It's not perfect of course, but it would eliminate a lot of loners driving drunk. And in all reality, loner drunks are the most likely to take the chance. How is this not solved by now?

What say you Sherdog?
Click to expand...

I would say you are batshit crazy
 
jgarner said:
On one hand, I think it would greatly reduce drunk driving incidents to almost nothing. On the other hand, how hard is it to beat one of those? Can you blow air into it with a device and will it still start? Like a syringe type thing without the needle. Could someone use that to start the car?

That said, I don't think anyone wants the hassle of that shit in their car.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not perfect(what is?). They can be bypassed. However, it would be a step in greatly reducing drunk driving incidents.

Of course it's a little bit of a hassle, but everyone thinks so at first. I'm sure motorcycle drivers were pissed when they made helmets mandatory.
 
HereticBD said:
Yeah, it's not perfect(what is?). They can be bypassed. However, it would be a step in greatly reducing drunk driving incidents.

Of course it's a little bit of a hassle, but everyone thinks so at first. I'm sure motorcycle drivers were pissed when they made helmets mandatory.
Click to expand...

Do you know how much this would cost the average consumer? Government intervention at it's finest - the majority paying for the minority.
 
I'd give a proper response but TS comes off like a total douche with every response so F him and his idea...
 
Oblivian said:
Do you know how much this would cost the average consumer? Government intervention at it's finest - the majority paying for the minority.
Click to expand...

Mass production would bring the cost down significantly.

I'll say it again, look at all the shit that's in a modern car, and yet people think a breathalyzer is this one piece of technology that they can't make cost effective? C'mon.

As for government regulated safety measures go, it is what it is. The majority are always punished for the rampant stupidity of the minority.
 
HereticBD said:
As for the mouthwash thing, it wouldn't be zero tolerance breathalyzer. It would be the legal limit. Mouthwash ain't going to set that off.

As far as inconvenience goes, it's really not that bad. You'd get used to it, like anything else. I've gotta bring my two year old car in for an emissions test, so I can buy a pointless sticker to put on my license plate. That's inconvenient, but what can you do? At least with this, there would be a purpose behind it.

We have that now though. However, in a lot of cases, drunk drivers don't get caught until they've killed someone. We need more prevention, because the punishments clearly aren't working.
Click to expand...
Personally I just don't see the government going for a legal limit breathalyzer if this were to be implemented. It's all or nothing with them. Maybe they would, but we'll never know unless this is forced on us. I do agree with you that it shouldn't be zero tolerance though.

Sure you could argue that we'd get used to the inconvenience. But having to pay $100 or whatever more every few months for the renewal is just beyond unfair for the millions of innocents who don't drive drunk. Those few hundred dollars could be essential for some people, and now they're just throwing money down the drain when they don't drive drunk in the first place.

And you're right that we do have these term limits now for people who have been caught, but I'll admit I'm not familiar with them. I should mention I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian, so our laws and limits on breathalyzers could be very different than the States. But my friend had gotten multiple DUI's, and it wasn't even the second one that he was required to have one installed. It also wasn't even close to 5 years, it's probably 2 years tops, and he will have completed his term in September, which scares me.
 
HereticBD said:
Mass production would bring the cost down significantly.

I'll say it again, look at all the shit that's in a modern car, and yet people think a breathalyzer is this one piece of technology that they can't make cost effective? C'mon.

As for government regulated safety measures go, it is what it is. The majority are always punished for the rampant stupidity of the minority.
Click to expand...

It would bring down the cost, but I think it would still be expensive. And then are we going retroactive on this where every older model car out there has to go get it installed? Good luck with that. It would be a cost and inconvenience to law abiding citizens.
 
pcptornado said:
Personally I just don't see the government going for a legal limit breathalyzer if this were to be implemented. It's all or nothing with them. Maybe they would, but we'll never know unless this is forced on us. I do agree with you that it shouldn't be zero tolerance though.

Sure you could argue that we'd get used to the inconvenience. But having to pay $100 or whatever more every few months for the renewal is just beyond unfair for the millions of innocents who don't drive drunk. Those few hundred dollars could be essential for some people, and now they're just throwing money down the drain when they don't drive drunk in the first place.

And you're right that we do have these term limits now for people who have been caught, but I'll admit I'm not familiar with them. I should mention I'm speaking from the perspective of a Canadian, so our laws and limits on breathalyzers could be very different than the States. But my friend had gotten multiple DUI's, and it wasn't even the second one that he was required to have one installed. It also wasn't even close to 5 years, it's probably 2 years tops, and he will have completed his term in September, which scares me.
Click to expand...

In Ontario It's a 1 year driving ban on the first offense, (90 days if you plea guilty within 90 days and enter the ignition lock program for 1 year). They want people to plea guilty by giving them an out within 90 days, because many people simply need their car and going without for 90 days is going to be a big enough challenge, especially if you live in a rural area or city without accessible public transportation. If you commute you're practically fucked. People end up pleading guilty to get the reduced suspension. In Ontario a 2nd offense now carries a mandatory 30 day holiday at your local detention center. 3rd time is 120 days.

It's funny because some judges are actual humans and will often grant the sentence for a 2+ time offender to be served over weekends to facilitate employment, but if the government were interested in facilitating employment they wouldn't take away a persons car for 90-356 days - they'd give them a hefty fine and tell them they can drive soon as they get a breathalyzer installed.

The new warn range of 0.05-0.08 is an even bigger money grab in Ontario. You can blow over that 10 minutes after using alcohol based mouthwashs. And with the mandatory roadside vehicle impoundment you better hope the officer is in a good mood, and believes your mouthwash excuse that he's probably heard 1000 times, and can smell your fresh breath, because you can't appeal the suspension if the officer doesn't believe you. Car gone for 3 days before you've pleaded guilty to anything. If not maybe you beat the charge in court after spending a few Gs on a lawyer, but you still lost your car for 3 days and paid tow/impound fees.

http://whiteningteethhelp.com/can-mouthwash-make-you-fail-a-breathalyzer/
 
Last edited:
Oblivian said:
It would bring down the cost, but I think it would still be expensive. And then are we going retroactive on this where every older model car out there has to go get it installed? Good luck with that. It would be a cost and inconvenience to law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll agree that's a sound reason of where this idea falls apart a bit. It would be fucking insane to get them installed and compatible in older model cars.
 
a few fuck-ups shouldn't have to ruin the driving-experience for everyone else. maybe creating stricter penalties for drinking-and-driving? after one offense, an automatic five years in jail. that sounds reasonable to me. i bet a whole ton of people would stop. not all. but a lot would.
 
IIIIIIII said:
a few fuck-ups shouldn't have to ruin the driving-experience for everyone else. maybe creating stricter penalties for drinking-and-driving? after one offense, an automatic five years in jail. that sounds reasonable to me. i bet a whole ton of people would stop. not all. but a lot would.
Click to expand...

Five years in jail? Holy shit.

And y'all thought my idea was harsh..
 
Because they don't really want to stop people from driving drunk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
Economy Why a small China-made EV has global auto execs and politicians on edge
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
Big Nasty Edison
Big Nasty Edison

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,150
Messages
55,470,478
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top