





Alcohol-detection devices should not be standard equipment on American cars, because they’re overly intrusive and their error rate is too high, according to a Gazette guest columnist.
“Automakers and the federal government have poured millions (including your tax dollars) into a government program called DADSS (Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety), which is developing alcohol-sensing technology to be installed as standard equipment in all cars,” says, Sarah Longwell, the managing director of the American Beverage Institute, in a guest column published Monday. “Congress recently boosted the program’s funding with $10 million in this year’s federal highway bill. This month, the National Transportation Safety Board urged the speedy completion of the DADSS program.
“While the technology is supposed to be used on a voluntary basis, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and fervent DADSS supporters such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have freely admitted that the longer-term goal is DADSS in every vehicle.
“If it was guaranteed that these devices would be set at the current 0.08 blood alcohol concentration limit, the technology wouldn’t be quite so troubling. Unfortunately, to avoid liability, these factory-installed devices will have to be set below 0.08 — possibly as low as 0.02 or 0.03, the level an average-sized man reaches after one drink.
“Even worse, if these new alcohol detection devices are manufactured to the highest reliability standard — that is, they function properly 99.99966 percent of the time — they still malfunction an estimated 4,000 times every day.
“If they’re slightly less reliable — i.e., accurate 99.7 percent of the time, there would be as many as 3 million daily misreadings. That’s up to 3 million moms unable to pick up their kids at school, employees unable to get to work and Christmas shoppers stranded at home.”
I know that courts sometimes order these devices installed in cars for people who had a DUI in the past. That’s a good idea and that is where it should stop. A device in every car is overkill. We need to be reasonable.
Your “overkill” comment has merit though placing it only in cars for people who have had a DUI does nothing to stop those who simply haven’t been caught. However studies have shown that using a cell phone and texting (!) while driving is as hazardous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Fixing that problem is likely much more challenging.
It seems MADD has gone mad.
MADD has done a great job of raising awareness of the consequences of driving under the influence and MADDs work has made a significant difference. But to assume every single driver is willing to drive under the influence and must prove they are not in order to start their car is going too far.
There is that problem that has been the bain of the liberal nanny statists. The constitution. Unreasonable searches, presumption of innocence, that whole freedom thing. Mark Levin calls it ‘soft tyranny’
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with approval of their own conscience” -C.S. Lewis
http://www.barnabasministry.com/review-levin-liberty.html
Over 10,000 people die a year in drunk driving accidents. Something must be done. What we are doing isn’t working!!
Yes, of course, we must increase the power of the nanny state and protect people from their own foolish decisions!! We must ban cars now before another one gets someone killed.
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.