A campaign spearheaded by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers kicked off earlier this week aimed at changing state drunken-driving laws to require that the cars of even first-time offenders be equipped with ignition interlocks that prevent the vehicle from being started by anyone who is inebriated. Moreover, MADD began floating the notion of taking this concept to its logical conclusion: It wants every automobile to come equipped with passive Breathalyzer-like technology that will screen the alcohol level of every driver.
“When 40% of all our crashes are alcohol-involved,” one advocate told The New York Times, “I don’t think it’s going to be that difficult of a sell.”
Let’s beg to differ. Here are just a few questions that will make selling this marriage of law and technology a difficult challenge:
There is, of course, the civil-libertarian question: Why should those who have never been convicted of drunken driving be compelled to prove they are innocent before being allowed to operate their own cars? This baby seems to have been tossed with the bath water long ago in a country where drug testing has become routine, but you can expect the die-hards to be heard anew.
So how far down the technology slope are we intent on sliding here? Certainly, any such standard automobile equipment could include a record-keeping component if lawmakers so decree. Will attempted drunken driving become a crime? There could be no denying the deterrent effect of such a new law. Three rejected start attempts, and you lose your license? Five, and the ignition is permanently disabled? The advocates will argue that an ounce of prevention beats even one more highway fatality related to drunken driving.
What about the networking possibilities? Will the data collected by these onboard blood-alcohol measurement devices be wirelessly transmitted to your local police department? Why not? It would clearly help law enforcement target and keep tabs on the recidivists. And the authorities will need to know when to pull your license for that third strike.
Even advocates of ignition interlocks acknowledge that they are easily circumvented – just find a sober person to lend you a clean puff – so technologists are looking for better answers. Among the possibilities, according to the Times story, are a Breathalyzer that attaches to a key chain and won’t let the car start if it senses too much booze, an appliance that beams light on a driver’s skin and analyzes the light that is returned, and special steering wheels and gear-shift levers.
All of which raise more questions.
Will starting someone else’s car become a crime if that person is later found to be driving drunk? What will be the impact of such laws on our overburdened courts?
And who’s to say this slope isn’t even slipperier? Why not add GPS to the technological cocktail? Park within 50 yards of a restaurant, bar or sports stadium and the blood-alcohol tolerance level that your car will accept is lowered from .08 to .06 – just to help you resist the temptation of taking that one last nip for the road. Couldn’t those tolerance levels be adjusted for holidays? Super Bowl Sunday? Friday and Saturday night?
Will parking valets go the way of the dinosaurs? Restaurants and bars are already legally on the hook for serving sloppy drunks, but will they want to take on the added liability of actually starting the cars of their imbibing patrons? I’m thinking they won’t . . . . Or does the onboard technology have to progress from systems that control the ignition to ones that control the transmission in order to keep a drunk from operating a car that has been started by a sober person?
Anyone believe this technology will work perfectly? Didn’t think so. What about false positives? Will my prescription medications render my car a useless hunk of junk? What happens when the technology simply malfunctions? Who will have the expertise to fix it? The mechanic at the corner garage? Will there be special repair facilities?
And how do you get the car there if it won’t start?
