MADD Chalks Up Victory On In-Car Breathalyzers
from the prove-you're-sober-first dept
For some time, the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has been promoting the use of in-car technology that will detect the presence of a drunk driver and prevent the car from starting. Heretofore, the technology has been pretty flaky and some studies even suggest that it's dangerous, but the organization claimed victory when Nissan recently announced that it had incorporated the technology into one of its concept cars. There's nothing wrong with car buyers (parents of teenagers most likely) wanting to get this feature, but MADD isn't content to see this as simply an option. The organization is clear that it would like to see this technology become mandatory, like seat belts. Of course, if you accept the logic that we could reduce crime by simply monitoring everyone's activities, there's a whole host of invasive technology we could conceivably employ for the betterment of society. What's particularly absurd about the Nissan technology is that it will work (well, supposedly work) by detecting alcohol in the air, which means that a drunk passenger could prevent the car from starting. So much for the campaign to get more designated drivers. Ultimately, some of the flaws with the existing technology could get worked out, so that it's effective. Unfortunately, once people feel that these devices work as advertised, politicians will have little reluctance to mandate them.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: madd, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait a minute...
I'm OK with this being an option but I am wholly of the opinion that anytime someone says "There ought to be a law" There ought not to be one... Chances are though, that this will eventually be mandated... "for the children" mind you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the limit set?
MADD's suggestion will undoubtedly be for all states to lower their allowed BAC to 0.02%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason being is because the alcohol in the person's breath is actually coming straight from their lungs. Can't really throw mouth wash in your lungs now can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alcohol in your lungs? Well, yes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:rplying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?
EtG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry if this is harsh and/or insensitive (cue the sob stories!!!), but it's the goddamn truth.
Fuck MADD.
Oh, yeah, for the record: it takes me months to work thru a six pack. I can't stand drunks. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MADD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MADD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
So why the hell should I be forced to blow into anything every time I want to use my car that I bought with my money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone dies tonight...
If you stay on your own private property then that's okay.
If you use your car on public roads, that's completely different, and you can be forced to blow into something.
I'm not saying I agree with MADD. I'm quite against their stance. However, your logic is not the correct way to go about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
Its just not reality. People like to go out, maybe have a drink with dinner or at a bar; they shouldn't be hassled for the responsible consumption of alcohol; yes I said responsible, not sloppy drunk.
The persons who need persecuting are the hard core drunks who will drive no matter how much they have had. These people are the problem. Of course, thats the ideal. Thats not how it happens... MADD just says persecute everyone whether it makes any sense or not. This is why they are seen as controversial, mostly irresponsible and hold little credibility with people who have a shred of common sense.
You and your type assume everyone who drinks is drinking to get drunk, because that is what YOU would do if you weren't a bitter reformed alcoholic. Get your sh*t straight before you open your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone dies tonight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compensate
Drunks, tailgaters, teenagers who think they are bullet proof race car drivers, serial cell-phone yakkers, blue hairs and nasty old geezers -- eliminate all the traffic hazards.
After watching a soccer mom in a four ton SUV with 8 kids juggling a cell phone, DVD player, game schedules, eating a burrito and putting on make-up -- I'll take my chances with a system instead, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nissan concept
This vehicle has other sensors besides the alcohol odor sensor to determine if the driver is drunk or too tired to drive. It's a great idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MADD
No.
People who have a history of infraction should have a monitor. People who don't violate the law should not be treated like criminals because they could violate the law.
MADD's efforts are good - death and injury are way down. But they're like the pollution districts that achieve 95% success at reasonable cost - and then want us to spend $5 billion to get the next 4% and $10 billion more for the next 1/2% because you'll never get 100%.
Not worth it.
Peter
in Denve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Stop With Booze?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MADD is MAD
Not, is is not worth it! The road to 1984 is paved in good intentions, rights are rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MADD is MAD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MADD.
When is this group going to understand that measures like this, and lowering the BAC level even further turn ordinary citizens into criminals? This does nothing to stop the repeat violators, and the blatant drunk drivers who don't follow the current laws.
Who's going to pay for this system? You and I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving Whi
"That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted."
MADD needs to be changed to "Mothers Against Distracted Drivers."
I’m getting real tired of all these groups getting laws and mandates passed that take away MY freedom for THEIR pet cause.
Their reason is always the same, to protect the children or like mentioned above sisters, mothers and daughters. BTW, what about sons, brothers and fathers…on yeah…Men are ones driving drunk (“he was so limber from”)
There shouldn’t be any law that penalized 99% of the people in an attempt to catch 1%. (read the stupid, I have to show my ID when I buy a single package of Sudafed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving
MADD needs to be changed to "Mothers Against Distracted Drivers."
While that does sound like a sensible suggestion that will never happen. Ego. Plain and simple. All the different egos in such an organization would clash over their pet causes. They would all be so caught up in their own cause that they would never get along. The anit drunk drivers would clash with the anti cell phone chatters. The anti loud music blasters would clash with the anti speeding people. And I don't even want to think about how many times, "Think of the children," would be used. Chaos would reign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OH NOES!!!!
So, of course, they'll have to attachment some sort of biometric device to the breathalyzer to "verify" you're the one blowing it.
And that'll be circumvented, which will only make the next iteration of the technology more intrusive....
And so on, and so on, and so on....
Just accept the fact that some jackasses will drive drunk.
Stay focused, stay sober, stay alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whats wrong with a car that requires you to blow in a breathalysers in order for it to start (too much alcohol no start).
that probably wont stop drunk driving but im sure it will make a difference, i know i got busted more than once cause i though i could drive but it turned out i was over the limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How breathalyzers work
> amount of CO2 you give off...
Not according to "breathalyzer.net":
How do breathalyzers work?
Most breathalyzers use one of three technologies to detect alcohol: a spectrophotometer, a fuel-cell sensor or a semiconductor oxide sensor. Spectrophotometer technology is used in large, table-top breathalyzers often found at police stations. Spectrophotometers work by identifying molecules based on the way they absorb infrared light. The level of ethanol in a sample is singled out and measured, and a subject's alcohol level can then be determined. Breathalyzer.net does not carry spectrophotometer testers.
Fuel-cell testers, such as the Lifeloc FC series, offer extremely high accuracy and sensitivity, in addition to being handheld and portable. In over 30 US states, roadside evidential testing is now permitted using testers like these. A fuel cell measures alcohol content by creating a chemical reaction that oxidizes the alcohol in the sample and produces an electrical current. The more alcohol that is oxidized, the greater the current. The current is measured to determine the subject's BAC.
Semiconductor oxide based testers are relatively new and very affordable. The Alcohawk series of testers employ semiconductor oxide technology. An ethanol-specific sensor is used to measure the subject's BAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How breathalyzers work
>> amount of CO2 you give off...
>Not according to "breathalyzer.net":
Oops, after checking around, you are correct. I actually was told the CO2 thing from a police officer lecturing college kids about drinking... figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real MADD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are you serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breathalyzer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
breathalyzers should be BANNED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nissan's Technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breathalyzer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MADD takes away freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
install breathalyzers in all (new + old) motor vehicles
Fact: I Told Geico,
“if y’all really want to save lots and lots and lots of money then
1) install speed cameras on all parkways + all expressways
so accidents don't happen
2) set speed-limiters (in all cars) to 75 mph
3) start pulling the data from all motor vehicles’ black boxes
when accidents do happen
4(e!) install breathalyzers in all (new + old) motor vehicles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: are you G-D'S friend or foe?
I shall tell you the marks of a friend--
a friend warns...
a friend assists...
a friend comforts...
a friend delivers... -- Fo-pen-hing-tsih-king (ch.16)
p.s.
bro(t)her! to prove THAT you are G-D'S friend
A) receive G-D'S Mail
B) carry G-D'S Mail
C) deliver G-D'S Mail
p.p.s.
bro(t)her! now (nunc) you know G-D'S ABCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]