MADD Chalks Up Victory On In-Car Breathalyzers

from the prove-you're-sober-first dept

Mon, Aug 6th 2007 11:03pm — Joseph Weisenthal

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.

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

71 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeezus, 6 Aug 2007 @ 11:36pm

Wait a minute...
Doesn't this kind of interfere with that whole innocent till proven guilty thing?
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 ]
Drew, 6 Aug 2007 @ 11:43pm

Where is the limit set?
Some states limit the allowed blood alcohol content to 0.05%. Drivers under 21 have a different limit for BAC, commonly 0.01% or 0.02%.

MADD's suggestion will undoubtedly be for all states to lower their allowed BAC to 0.02%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pot, 6 Aug 2007 @ 11:47pm

Wait a minute. Wouldn't mouth wash interfere with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Learn Something, 7 Aug 2007 @ 2:26am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, that's just one of a few disproved urban legends on how to beat a breathalizer. In short: you can't no matter how much you try to mark your breath.
  
  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 ]
  - Cixelsid, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Really? Alcohol in your lungs? Exactly what have you been smoking?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Alcohol in your lungs? Well, yes...
      Uh, how do you *think* breathalysers work? Alcohol gets into the bloodstream via the digestive process, then, evaporates into the air in the lungs as you breath as the blood gets oxegenated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Clark Cox (profile), 7 Aug 2007 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, really. The way breathalyzers measure blood alcohol content is by measuring the amount that is expelled by the lungs (i.e. it evaporates from the blood along with CO2 and other dissolved gasses) and extrapolating.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - learn something, 28 Apr 2008 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:rplying
    There R certain things you can eat and pass a breathalyzer
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jb, 7 Aug 2007 @ 4:53am
  
  Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?
  Actually, mouthwash (and toothpaste and perfume) could trigger a positive for alcohol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eric the Grey, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?
    As does gum, or so I've been told.
    
    EtG
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AlbinoRhino, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:18am

This will become mandatory in the United States because it's citizens are sheep. Look at all of the bs they have already allowed to make it into the law books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raymond L, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:27am

If it detects the alcohol in the air, what happens if you simply open the windows? Or do we simply prevent people using windows? No more drive through food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:37am

Questions
How accurate is it? How often might it identify a sober person as drunk or a drunk person as sober? Even assuming it's 100% accurate in that regard, if it simply samples the air near the driver's head, how does it know that it's the driver and not a passenger that's drunk? If it requires breathing into a tube or some such thing to start the car, how does it know that a sober person didn't start the car and then allow a drunk person to drive it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robwil, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: Questions
  And then of course is the question of is it really responding to alcohol or something that it just thinks is alcohol? Even ignition interlock devices are subject to this error, and then of course there is the problem of heavy perfumes or aftershave that have alcohol bases and mouthwash and food. It sounds nice on the surface but much more of an infringement that it is a cure for anything. MADD has a good cause going, however their efforts continually suck attention away from other equally serious problems. They suffer from tunnel vision I think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:47am

I for one, would like to know what happens to bartenders who others who work in the food/entertainment business when they get off-shift and decide to drive home.... after being around the fumes all night long or worse, having someone spill a beverage on them or having a glass with liquor dropped and spilled all over their shoes and slacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 1:43am

Can you imagine the new wave of pranks? Car stopped at a red light, window down because it's hot, gang of punks run/drive up and spill some beer/whatever into the driver's lap, run off. Car turns off, won't restart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 2:23am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, right. Just not going to happen is it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 3:04am

MADD is run by a bunch of psychotic lunatics that only truly want one thing: the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

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 ]
- Haywood, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:48am
  
  Re: MADD
  I prefer DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - name, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re: MADD
    i agree
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack, 19 Oct 2008 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  I can help with that six pack. Takes about an hour and a half. But don't worry...I'll drive to the store and get you more. In fact I'll do that a few times before the night's over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
keymjg, 7 Aug 2007 @ 4:26am

Someone dies tonight...
NOT! That’s a laugh. Was working the night Candy Lightner, the now founder of MADD who’s daughter was tragically killed by a drunk driver in Orlando Florida that Friday night, in the firehouse that ran on that call, she is nothing more than a mother trying to cope with the loss of her daughter and found a way to express that grief in a constructive and productive way. Don’t be so stupid. All you have to do is read the newspaper on any Sunday in your town and see the devastating effect drinking and driving has on the road that weekend. The sad reality is that that someone might be your mother, maybe your sister who was driving home from shopping when some jerk coming out of happy hour hits her and kills her, and sadly enough because he was so limber from drinking, walks away. Seen it thousands of times. Should you be allowed to drink…yep…till you drop is fine as long as you never get near a car when you do it. People are going to die tonight because of drinking behind the wheel and, like I said, some of them were nothing more then innocent bystanders like your family. Maybe the car might help you to rethink what could be the most stupid thing you’ve ever done in your life, drive drunk and kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  I've been driving for 15 years and have never, not once, gotten behind the wheel (legally) drunk.
  
  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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: 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?"
    
    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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2008 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re: Someone dies tonight...
    really? you knew your BAC each and every time you got behind the wheel? i would have taken your word for it had you not thrown the "legally" in there. That's the major problem with DWI laws, they are based on a mathematical figure that almost nobody can have knowledge of until after they are stopped and tested.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  You know you'd be correct and more people would agree with you, and perhaps MADD's, argument if you would simple be reasonable. The problem is, you won't. You believe ANY drinking voids your ability to drive home. Its that whole zero tolerance mentality that shows ZERO thought and ZERO common sense.
  
  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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  Should you be allowed to drink…yep…till you drop is fine as long as you never get near a car when you do it.
  And just why the hell shouldn't someone who has been out drinking be allowed to ride home in a car? I think some of you crusaders are just extremist nuts and this is a good example of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  All you have to do is read the newspaper on any Sunday in your town and see the devastating effect drinking and driving has on the road that weekend.
  I did. Didn't see it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  Ever time I here this crap I just shake my head at the idiocy. You may want to check the statics on traffic fatalities. Tens of thousands die that are stone cold sober. You know what, in the vast majority of traffic accidents everyone involved is sober. But lets not worry about the thousands getting killed. We'll just demonize this one group of people like they are responsible for all these traffic accidents. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We'll leave the sober maniacs out there killing people without consequence. But if they've had a beer, well then we'll throw them in jail for life. Look at their agenda. MADD is a neo-prohibitionist movement and nothing more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- thor, 2 Jan 2009 @ 12:55am
  
  Re: Someone dies tonight...
  too bad madd was based on emotions it is sad what happened to candy lightner's daughter punish the driver who killed her not everyone else.madd should look at drunk driving from a scientific view not base laws on emotions!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:03am

And what happens to all the good samaritans who drive drunk women home and the women want to give them roadhead as payment? That would cause the car to turn off which is not safe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:25am
  
  Re:
  lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GoblinJuice, 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Roadhead? Man, I'ma remember that word! =D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thebond.tv, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:07am

Compensate
I think they need to innovate a self driven car that let the drunk driver drop to their home safely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nasty Old Geezer, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: Compensate
  Seriously -- I am in favor of automated vehicles for Interstate, suburban, and urban driving. Type in your destination and the on-board computers works out the ideal route with a central traffic contorl system.
  
  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 ]
thebond.tv, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:09am

Compensate
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070806/075045.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
electrostatictommyboy, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:39am

nissan concept
"We've placed odor detectors and a sweat sensor on the gear shift Nissan's car includes a mounted camera that monitors alertness by eye scan. Nissan's alcohol-detection sensors check odor, sweat and driver awareness, issuing a voice alert from the navigation system and locking up the ignition if necessary. Also keeping a short leash on drivers, car seat belts tighten if drowsiness is detected, while an on-road monitor checks if a car is keeping its lane properly.

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 ]
name, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:13am

WTF?
so if im trashed and i have my buddy drive and i sit in the passanger seat, will it still not start because it detects the alcohol from me in the air? bullsh*t!! there is no law stating the passanger of a vehical cant be wasted. screw this. i cant possibly see how they could make it mandatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:23am

MADD
Even if it saved only one life wouldn't it be worth it?
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 ]
Improbus, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:44am

Why Stop With Booze?
People drive screwed up on things other than alcohol. What are you going to do about those people? Maybe everyone should have a chauffeur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:48am

MADD is MAD
The MADD Yentas can get off their lazy, wild driving (in their Minivans) asses and go fight in Iraq. A person is not a citizen and should not have to do a thing if he/she cannot enjoy the full rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. This includes drinking and gambling.

Not, is is not worth it! The road to 1984 is paved in good intentions, rights are rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James, 13 Dec 2008 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: MADD is MAD
  driving is NOT a right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lewis Salem, 7 Aug 2007 @ 6:58am

MADD.
MADD has done some wonderful things. They put pressure on people to take drunk driving more serious in the 80's and 90's. However, I fail to see how anybody will accept in car monitoring systems if they do not have a history of drunk driving.

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 ]
Gene, 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:10am

Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving Whi
"Maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, U.S. researchers report.

"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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:33am
  
  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 ]
DDAM (Drunk Drivers Against Mothers), 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:23am

I am pretty sure you can "adjust" this sensor by staffing some activated charcoal in/on it. Or just covering it up with a condom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GoblinJuice, 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:44am
  
  Re:
  Or have a friend / bum / some jerk that needs $5 use it. =D
  
  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 ]
Jeff, 7 Aug 2007 @ 7:28am

Fantastic
Looks like MADD is going the way of the ACLU...if the presence of these devices in all automobiles ever becomes mandatory there'll be hacks and workarounds available months before the fuckin' things are ever put on sale. Way to waste peoples time and money, faggot pussy lawyers and the majority of the people they represent are fucking this country up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:11am

call me simple but:

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 ]
- Clark Cox (profile), 7 Aug 2007 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  Well, it would inconvenience the law-abiding, and do nothing to stop the determined drunk from driving.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eileen, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:18am

I'm pretty sure most breathalyzers work by measuring the amount of CO2 you give off, as it is a by-product of alcohol metabolism and proportional to BAC. So I think the drive-by punk scenario would work better with a shot from a fire extinguisher... be a lot funnier, too. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clark Cox (profile), 7 Aug 2007 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  No, CO2 is a byproduct of any metabolism. Eating candy and drinking alcohol both produce CO2.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Brown, 7 Aug 2007 @ 8:23am

How breathalyzers work
> I'm pretty sure most breathalyzers work by measuring the
> 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 ]
- Eileen, 7 Aug 2007 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: How breathalyzers work
  >> I'm pretty sure most breathalyzers work by measuring the
  >> 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 ]
Nick (profile), 7 Aug 2007 @ 9:36am

MADD will not stop unless by force. Even through the may have made laws tougher and streets safer, their executives will not get paid and their cause will cease to exist and get funding unless the find new ways to to limit freedoms as they relate to alcohol. They really must be stopped, but it will not be possible by political means, since no politician wants to be seen as supporting drunk driving. Anyone have any ideas on how to kill MADD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:30am

The Real MADD
MADD is actually just an anti-alcohol organization. If they were really interested in vehicle safety they would target other things that are even more dangerous than drinking like yakking on a phone while driving. But they don't because those things don't involve alcohol. Instead, they use "think of the children" tactics, like putting the word "Mothers" in their name, to disguise their agenda. MADD pushes for things like laws that make it illegal for even passengers to drink in vehicles and the nationwide raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21. Old enough to go to war but too young for a beer? That's MADD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 7 Aug 2007 @ 2:31pm

That's why I'll just keep my used paid-off honda civic. No need to buy a new vehicle. Equiping the millions of used cars already on the road would cost a fortune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AllOver, 7 Aug 2007 @ 5:53pm

Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, has since left MADD and referred to it as an organization that will stop at nothing other short of prohibition. They are an evil organization that no longer has the best interests of anyone (outside of MADD) in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2007 @ 6:03pm

I didnt read any of the comments just throwing this out there, I've seen the ones with little tubes for people to blow on, what if I got my friend to blow on it as I start the car? and then drive away from him? wouldn't the car think I was sober?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2008 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: reply
  That's exacttly right people drive around with friends, husbands wives and children anyone can blow in them. Machine is stupid doesn't know. You can also bypass them at anytime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 25 Aug 2007 @ 10:28am

Well I guess nobody will be driving their cars within 20 minutes after using mouthwash or Binaca...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2008 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  That's exacttly right people drive around with friends, husbands wives and children anyone can blow in them. Machine is stupid doesn't know. You can also bypass them at anytime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
brandi, 7 Apr 2008 @ 2:00pm

are you serious
I've read on sites where courts will use this as a type of punishment. so why should this be mandatory? why should citizens rights and privacy be violated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bardine, 17 Apr 2008 @ 4:33pm

Breathalyzer
you can save $10 but typing in the coupon code save10 at checkout on www.breathalyzer.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2008 @ 9:21am

breathalyzers should be BANNED!
sugar such as slurpies,candy bars banannas, koolaid etc set those things off also including pickles etc the list goes on. Those things don't work at all. Gum also sets them off. They are dangerous when driving. When you have a set time to blow in the device and watch traffic at the same time. It even says in their OWN paper work that they malfunction all the time. They send inocent people to jail . Who ever made these things up probally doesn't have one in their car. All it is, is a MONEY thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 5:56pm

die Madd Mother cunts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 20 Feb 2010 @ 10:22am

Nissan's Technology
Seems to be a good idea but like it was stated if a pasenger is drunk in the vehicle, it won't start. What if you have a designated driver? You would think they would've thought of this before spending money on development. They need to iron this one out. Exercise Shorts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Againt for drunker (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:32am

Breathalyzer
Nice post! I really support for MADD, it's a great idea. If someone is fighting for good thing, We should support. http://www.rapiddrugdetection.com/Alcohol-Breathalyzer-p-1-c-250.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vanish738, 6 Jun 2010 @ 6:06pm

MADD takes away freedom.
Some of the above comments are absolutely right.All I wanted to do was drink alcohol and these bitches ripped me of my rights. 21+ is absolutely unreasonable, the minimum age for everything should be 18. MADD is like the new prohibition. And 18 to 20 year olds are not even the big cause of drunk driving,MADD probably just payed people to show mass statistics of lower drunk driving deaths since the beginning of the 21+ rule.Its nothing but a fucked up stereotype, (mocks) Oh, all young people are irresponsibe,Oh they can't function properly till they're 25, FUCK THAT!!! im 19 and i don't even wanna get drunk,hangovers suck,all i wanna do is mix drinks,and have fun. MADD should be discontinued permanently,and the drinking age should be dropped to 18,not just in the US but worldwide,Im sure there's kids over in india where the drinking age is 25 that just wanna have a damn beer or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
timgolden (profile), 5 Dec 2016 @ 6:02am

install breathalyzers in all (new + old) motor vehicles
U.S. Department of Justice,
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 ]
timgolden (profile), 5 Dec 2016 @ 6:06am

Q: are you G-D'S friend or foe?
U.S. Department of Justice,
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 ]