Should All New Cars Include Alcohol Detection Systems?

Alcohol detection systems will save lives as there have been 230K deaths since 2000.

Another safety feature that could save lives are speed adaption systems with 11.5K deaths since 2020.

The only drawback is the amount of time to implement as manufacturers gave 2-3 years to complete for new cars but what about older cars already on the road?

"Since 2000, more than 230,000 deaths have take place as a result of crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTHSA). However, speeding is becoming more of a problem. Since 2020, a recorded 11,528 fatalities are attributed to wrecks that involved at least one speeding vehicle. The implementation of speed adaptation systems and integrated alcohol detection technologies in new vehicles could be a major step toward minimizing these threats on public roads."

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/09/ntsb-wants-alcohol-detection-systems-in-all-new-vehicles/

Years ago, I spent a week in Japan with a Japanese Professor who had worked for me for a year as an NRC fellow. He wanted me to experience Japanese culture and took me around the country to his family garden, Koyota Kubucki plays, to Japanese Hotels (and wering Japanaese night robes) and other sites.

We went to the Tokyo hub for evening dining and entertainment, had a Japanese multi-course dinner which cost each of us around $200 (we split the bill).

I saw several hundred taxis parked in a central area and asked why they were there. He told me that driving under the influence had extremly stiff penalties and loss of driving priviledges for months for first offenses, They, as a country, have very few deaths caused by people driving under the influence. 

This is already being done in some states as part of sentencing for certain DWI convictions. Given that 43% of people and 56% of men admit to having driven drunk, and a high percentage of others have ridden in cars or other vehicles with an intoxicated driver this definitely needs consideration. Up to 140,000 deaths per year in the United States are related to alcohol, over 10,000 of those deaths occur in traffic accidents.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

Alcohol-Related Deaths

States and communities can reduce deaths due to excessive drinking.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html

no. we have given up enough civil liberties to the corporate masters. 

personally, I do not use alcohol, but this is intrusive.

I fully support methods to keep impaired drivers from operating their vehicles but am unsure of how practicable they can be. I am most concernened about drivers who know that they are impaired but feel that they are still competent to drive, breathalyzers can easily be fooled if someone wants to fool them. Consider the driver who know that they may get impaired by alcohol consumption, and stores some blown up balloons to sure that their car will start. If I were to go out to lunch and drank a beer would I be able to drive back to work. If I was ready to drive my wife to the hospital when her contractions became more frequent would i be able to drive to the hospital if needed after using medically prescribe gingivitis mouthwash? The standards for defining legal intoxication vary greatly from state to state and how could auto manufacturers change the standards too match the locality's requirements?

I think the most beneficial use of breathalyzers, for example, would be a requirement to use one before operating a vehicle which would warn tihe operator that should they get involved in an accident, the fact that they ignored a breathalyzer warning would result in significant driver's priviledge restrictions.

I frankly do not know enough about how breathalyzers or other impairment monitoring systems truly work nor now reliable or foolproof that they can be, I am concerned that about the limits at which such systems could stop a driver from operating their vehicle despite those situations where their vehicle must be used, like being able to immediately evacuate an area with an approaching wild fire, or getting a family member or a friend to a hospital for critically needed medical care. 

That’s an unequivocal Yes!

I think it would be more effective if people were made to take an intelligence test before they got behind the wheel. It should be fairly simple perhaps some basic math problems and history quiz questions. However this may preclude an abundance of Trump supporter  drivers to ride the bus. I guess it's better in the long run to ride the bus then to be thrown under it by Donald Trump.

Considering that the majority of people do not drive while intoxicated this is just one more way to punish good people for the acts of some idiots. 

The precedent of automotive safety features has dramatically saved lives by reducing deaths from car crashes. This new safety feature hopefully prevents some car crashes.

"Congress began an active role in promoting automobile safety by passing the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the U.S. population stood at 196 million. At that time, roughly 51,000 Americans died annually in automobile crashes. Fast forward to 2012, when the U.S. population had grown to 314 million—almost a 60 percent increase—yet the number of fatalities had fallen to 33,500. For each 100 million miles driven, this translates to a decline in the fatality rate from 5.5 percent to 1.1 percent—a dramatic drop by any measure."

https://www.theregreview.org/2022/10/17/adler-reflections-of-an-unapologetic-safety-regulator/

Reflections of an Unapologetic Safety Regulator | The Regulatory Review

Leading U.S. consumer safety regulator reflects on his career and offers lessons for all regulatory...

https://www.theregreview.org/2022/10/17/adler-reflections-of-an-unapologetic-safety-regulator/

The premise is good...but the implementation would be far too "Big Brother-ish"

Government overreach,

 I am more worried about people driving with drugs or under Marijuana influence.

This throws due process out the window.

As a non-drinker, I say "what a pain for those of us" but it sure would prevent people from drinking and driving...

People overestimate their ability to drive after they drink. It would be safer for all concerned if breathalyzers were required to start a car.

No

Even traditional alcohol testing is not 100% accurate.

I find this to be a violation of my rights. This comes from someone who might have a drink once a week. My bigger concern is that I don't think people look at all the possibilities and outcomes. I am a volunteer firefighter. I have responded to more than my share of motor vehicle accidents where drugs and alcohol are contributing factors. It takes 4 to 7 minutes to get a crew to the station. We all drive. How much longer is the response time going to be when we have to factor in a breathalyzer test? How many people will die because of a longer response time? These laws designed to protect others so often punish those of us who already follow the rules while just adding one more hurdle for those who will find a way to do what they want. This is just another attempt to legislate moral values and history proves it doesn't work. 

It wouldn't stop every drunk from driving, but it will stop a significant portion of them.

Unless you want 1/2 of American's jailed including judges, politicians, law enforcement, etc. 

New vehicles already have enough technology full of glitches that are throwing codes that cost a fortune to fix. These breathalizers they want to put into cars are beyond easy to get around. I do not have the answer to drunk driving but this is not it. While here we should be thinking about the commercials for gambling on all media for people to gamble on their phones. No cigarette commercials. No alcohol commercials wait till the banks start screaming over credit card defalts.

these things break and give false positives all the time. Unless wealthy employers get stripped of all their freedoms, families, and wealth when the devices make their employees later for work, don't saddle the workers with such a bother. 

Now do the same for guns.

While I'm in favor of any process that impedes drunk driving, I do feel like there would have to be a few basic caveats to do it right:
1) The system would need to be able to get nearly a perfect reading all the time. No one wants their car to give them false positives, and also it would fuel the argument for anyone who's against the idea.
2) It would have to be fairly unobtrusive. No one wants to jump in their car and then have to exhale through a tube just to start it. We even have push-button systems now because people thought it was too much of a pain in the ass to turn a key.
3) It would have to detect BAL quickly. See #2 above. No one wants to wait even 10 seconds before they can turn on their car.

Ultimately, it shouldn't be made harder for you to drive your own car than it would be for a thief to steal it. Basically, if it can be done with minimal intereference to the simple act of starting one's car, I'm for it. 

I see no privacy issue or problem with constitutional law as long as the device BELONGS to you once the CAR belongs to you, and you can prevent it form communicating ourside the car.  Like the seatbelt, it is ther to save your life.  As a bonus, it may save OTHER peoples lives.  I approve of saving peoples lives 100%! 

Another great idea.  It has been talked about for years to no avail.  Would like to see this happen but not only on the new models.  If they could come up with a way to install this technology in older vehicles, I'd be a happy camper.  First DUI would get a warning, the second would be mandatory installation.  I'm not a drinker but in my youth, I had a few close calls.  But by the grace of God, never got busted.