The Instigator
2cents4change
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Banks_Own_America
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Teen drivers and DUI/DWI offenders should be required to have breathalyzers in their cars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
2cents4change
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 84499
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

2cents4change

Pro

The brain has been proven not to be fully form completely until the age of 20 -25. That means to some degree a persons judgement of future consequences from present actions is impaired. Alcohol has been proven to impair motor skills, judgement, and a persons senses. Why allow these two hinderances to feed off of each other in teen drivers ?

In an effort to understand how many drunk driving offenders had prior DUI convictions on their records, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requested states to supply data in 2012. In all, 12 states submitted this requested data and after reviewing the information, the NHTSA discovered that nearly one-third of all DUI arrests and DUI convictions involved repeat drunk driving offenders.

The data also uncovered some other concerning statistics. For instance, when comparing first-time DUI offenders with repeat offenders, it was found that a person with a prior DUI has 4.1 times the risk of being involved in a fatal automobile accident. In another study, researchers found that the chances for being involved in a fatal car accident increased with every additional DUI arrest.

Several review papers in the last 15 years have summarized available literature on drinking driver characteristics. A recent review of more than 130 original and review papers (Kennedy, 1993) summarizes key information as follows. (Numerical estimates below are approximate ranges from the majority of studies reviewed.)

Drinking while driving drivers are majority between the ages of 20-45; 80-95% are male; high school education or less; 49-79% are in blue collar occupations; most are white, single (46-55%), divorced or separated (22-41%).

They frequently display aggressive and hostile behavior; more frequently sensation-seekers; more likely to have histories of other criminal behavior; minimize the risks of impaired driving -- they do not consider impaired driving a serious issue and rarely feel that they are too impaired to drive.

They also drink at least 2-3 times a week; 13-38% daily drinkers; frequently have 5 or more drinks at a time (35-60%); mean BAC 0.18 - 0.28; drink beer (64-79%);drink in licensed establishments (40-60%) more frequently than in private homes (18-34%);frequently had a previous problem due to drinking -- marital or family difficulties (30-49%), previous DWI (20-28%); frequently problem drinkers (54-74%)

69% think that most drinker-drivers are not alcoholics or problem drinkers.
85% think that drinking and driving by non-alcoholics is a serious highway problem, and 53% think that drinking and driving by others is a serious threat to the personal safety of themselves and their family.
58% think it is very important that something be done to reduce drinking and driving; another 35% think it is somewhat important; 83% think that people cannot drive safely after drinking too much even if they are careful.
32% think they can drink more than most people and still drive safely;
66% think they can drink about the same as most people.

These all combined into a person who mostly likely and persistently drink and drive, regardless of consequences. A teenager is even higher statistically likely to drink and drive and have a defiant attitude towards future may be consequences.

A breathalyzer attached to the ignition in teenage drivers and all DUI/DWI offenders, 1st time or otherwise, vehicles will greatly reduce the number of accident and fatalities happening each year. The device would have a video camera attached to prevent substitute testers and those circumventing the test would face high fines, added community service, extended probation, and the lose of their vehicle.
Banks_Own_America

Con

This is a clear violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens and this law will just be another way for the government to infringe on our rights. Article the sixth of the constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." This is a infringement on our rights as American citizens and this law will only further abuse the powers of the government.

The numbers and statistics you presented are irrelevant. There are plenty of other ways to prevent drinking and driving rather than just putting some new martial law into effect. This new law would just move us closer and closer to the big brother society. Our corporate owned government has absolutely no right to put a camera in our vehicle and spy on us to make sure that we follow some unnecessary law. Their cars that they drive will not have some stupid breathalyzer in it, I can guarantee you that.
Debate Round No. 1
2cents4change

Pro

The statistics show that such a measure would not be unreasonable. If DUI offenders rarely were repeat offenders and drunk teenage driver involved in accident was a barely there percentage then yes the measure would be unreasonable. But teenage drunk driving kills eight teens every day. In 2003, 31% of teen drivers who died in car accidents had been drinking, 40% of alcohol-related fatal car crashes involve teens, and 60% of all teen deaths in car accidents are alcohol related. A teenage boy with a blood alcohol concentration of just 0.05 (well below the amount considered "legally drunk" in most states) is 18 times more likely to suffer a single vehicle crash than his non-drinking counterparts. And a teenage girl is 54 times more likely to crash. By your thinking, we should all just work on the honor system and HOPE people and the teenagers who defy parents and society rules at every turn in their efforts at playing adult, possess great judgement and follow the law.

If a person has shown or repetitively shows poor judgement, they are put on notice, probation, grounded until they can prove in a period of time that the CAN exercise good judgement. Why risk them killing someone or themselves when they have a track record and/or scientifically proven to have impaired judgement when drinking and teenagers by virtue of a unformed brain due to their age. Worse when combining these two things, a intoxicated teenager driving. The measure is only in place till they are of legal age to consume alcohol and until the end of their probation for DUI offenders.
Banks_Own_America

Con

Banks_Own_America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2cents4change

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited the last round Im not sure what to do here lol I has presented my case so unless there are any questions or comments that I can address, or my opponent posted their rebuttal, I rest my case for now.
Banks_Own_America

Con

Banks_Own_America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2cents4change

Pro

? Im winning ?
Banks_Own_America

Con

Banks_Own_America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2cents4change

Pro

? Still winning ?
Banks_Own_America

Con

Banks_Own_America forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 2cents4change 1 year ago
2cents4change
It was a link attached to a MADD- mothers against drunk driving site
Posted by Clyde2337 1 year ago
Clyde2337
Pro, do you have a source that shows that a teenage girl is 54 times more likely to crash and a teenage boy is 18 times more likely to crash if they both have a 0.05 BAC?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
2cents4changeBanks_Own_AmericaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate on Pro's part, good job. Con forfeits most of the debate, thus conduct goes to Pro. Cons case is that the motion would violate Constitution rights, pro's is that it will save lives. Con responds to Pro's case by saying that the statistics are irrelevant, Pro shows that by the motion, they will save lives and thus wins his case. Pro did not directly respond to the Constitutional argument directly, which Pro should have done. But since lives outweigh it, Pro wins arguments.