Mandatory Breathalyzers and Interlocking Devices in Automobiles

The idea of utilizing breathalyzers or interlock systems in automobiles to prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel has been debated for years; technology exists that would not only allow breathalyzers to detect a driver’s blood alcohol level, but according to the New York Times, technology is being developed that would allow a simple touch of the steering wheel to measure that level (Moran.) In the past, the discussion about this issue has centered on requiring people convicted of drunken driving to use a breathalyzer or an “interlock” which would prevent that person from starting the car. Now, however, “advocates feel that every car, not simply the ones driven by those convicted of DUI, ”should also be driving vehicles with a breathalyzer or an interlock system. According to the advocates of this technology, these interlocks could save thousands of lives a year.”(Moran.)

Breathalyzers have been used in most states, allowing the car to start only after the driver blows into a mechanism that is connected to the vehicle and which measures his or her alcohol level, locking down the car if it picks up even a trace of alcohol. The equipment is used not only when the car is being started, but requires that the driver periodically blows into the device to have the alcohol blood level monitored throughout the drive. However, the case could be made that rather than focusing on drivers who have already been convicted of driving while drunk, preventing accidents in the first place are the goal–if the technology is only used in vehicles belonging to convicted drivers, the public is placed at risk from drivers who have not driven drunk in the past or have simply not been caught. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that    ” 9000 lives could be saved annually if drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more were prevented from driving (Moran.)”

The statistics regarding alcohol-related car accidents are striking. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 40% of traffic fatalities are related to use of alcohol. In 2006 alone, more than 17,500 people were killed in accidents connected with alcohol use, including 13,470 of which were crashes in which at least one driver tested above the legal blood alcohol level (which is 0.08 gram per deciliter) (Moran.) One of the most active groups promoting the use of interlock technology has been Mothers against Drunk Driving, who have been encouraging jurisdictions to use interlocks for people who have been convicted of drunk driving for the first time rather than simply for repeat offenders. One can also make a case for simply installing the technology in every car, which would prevent even that initial accident from occurring and possibly saving lives or injuries by not allowing the driver to get behind the wheel even one time after drinking. In addition, if these devices were installed in every car, there would be less of a stigma attached, since it would not be only those having already been convicted of one DUI or more who were driving cars with such equipment. Everyone would have them, making it impossible to determine whether or not someone ever had been convicted of DUI.

Putting breathalyzers or interlock technology in every car, rather than simply those connected with offenders, would address some of the concerns that the American Civil Liberties Union have expressed regarding privacy issues and the violation of civil rights if the systems are installed in cars for convicted drunken drivers. That organization is not opposed to interlocks as “an alternative to incarceration for convicted drunk drivers, “but opposes installing them in every car because it raises the issue of  “ ‘Who is going to be barred from driving and why?’ ”(Moran.)

In addition to reducing the number of fatalities as well as injuries caused by accidents related to drunk-driving, there is also a significant financial burden caused by such accidents, including and especially rising rates for automobile insurance, medical costs that result from injuries and treatment following those injuries, and loss of time from work. While Americans are rightfully proud of their independence and ability to make choices, when it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol, they forfeit those rights when they risk injury to themselves and to others. In the past, even the enforcement of using seatbelts was met with resistance, as well as motorcyclists refusing to comply with helmet laws. People simply don’t want the government telling them how to live their lives but when their decisions directly impact the health and well-being of others, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, including establishing standards of safety.

There is no controversy around the fact that alcohol and driving simply do not mix. If someone plans to drink socially, even in moderation, there is always an alternative to driving afterwards: having a designated driver accompany him or her, calling a friend or relative to drive that person home when the social event is over, or calling a taxi. This requires some planning in advance of consuming alcohol, but part of the responsibility of being old enough to drink is being able to make arrangements to guarantee one’s safety, that of his or her passengers as well as that of the public at large. Utilizing breathalyzers or interlock technology in all cars would nearly completely eliminate the risk of driving while intoxicated. It is difficult to argue against aiming towards this as a goal; imagine the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives would be saved, as well as eliminating the trauma and grief experienced by the families of those who have lost loved ones because of drunk drivers.

…