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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Jeezus, Aug 6th, 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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Drew, Aug 6th, 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%.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    pot, Aug 6th, 2007 @ 11:47pm

    Wait a minute. Wouldn't mouth wash interfere with it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    AlbinoRhino, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Raymond L, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Mark, Aug 7th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 2:23am

    Re:

    Yeah, right. Just not going to happen is it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Learn Something, Aug 7th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    keymjg, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    jb, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 4:53am

    Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?

    Actually, mouthwash (and toothpaste and perfume) could trigger a positive for alcohol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    thebond.tv, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 5:07am

    Compensate

    I think they need to innovate a self driven car that let the drunk driver drop to their home safely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Cixelsid, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re:

    Really? Alcohol in your lungs? Exactly what have you been smoking?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    electrostatictommyboy, Aug 7th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Nasty Old Geezer, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Haywood, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 5:48am

    Re: MADD

    I prefer DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    name, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    name, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: MADD

    i agree

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    SailorRipley, Aug 7th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Peter, Aug 7th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 6:25am

    Re:

    lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Improbus, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    James, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Brian, Aug 7th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Lewis Salem, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Gene, Aug 7th, 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)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    DDAM (Drunk Drivers Against Mothers), Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    GoblinJuice, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 7:39am

    Re:

    Roadhead? Man, I'ma remember that word! =D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    GoblinJuice, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Eileen, Aug 7th, 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. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Mike Brown, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    robwil, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Eileen, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Nick (profile), Aug 7th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Eric the Grey, Aug 7th, 2007 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: wouldn't mouthwash interfere with it?

    As does gum, or so I've been told.


    EtG

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Clark Cox (profile), Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Clark Cox (profile), Aug 7th, 2007 @ 1:15pm

    Re:

    Well, it would inconvenience the law-abiding, and do nothing to stop the determined drunk from driving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Clark Cox (profile), Aug 7th, 2007 @ 1:18pm

    Re:

    No, CO2 is a byproduct of any metabolism. Eating candy and drinking alcohol both produce CO2.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Chris, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    AllOver, Aug 7th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Ben, Aug 25th, 2007 @ 10:28am

    Well I guess nobody will be driving their cars within 20 minutes after using mouthwash or Binaca...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    brandi, Apr 7th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Bardine, Apr 17th, 2008 @ 4:33pm

    Breathalyzer

    you can save $10 but typing in the coupon code save10 at checkout on www.breathalyzer.net

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    learn something, Apr 28th, 2008 @ 9:42am

    Re: Re:rplying

    There R certain things you can eat and pass a breathalyzer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Jack, Oct 19th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 13th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    James, Dec 13th, 2008 @ 12:02pm

    Re: MADD is MAD

    driving is NOT a right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    thor, Jan 2nd, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2010 @ 5:56pm

    die Madd Mother cunts

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    John (profile), Feb 20th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Againt for drunker (profile), Mar 31st, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    vanish738, Jun 6th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This