Amazon.com Widgets
  • We should allow them

    We should allow them because it is killing our population. Answer me this how would you feel if one of your kids was to be hit by a drunk driver, do think that now we should allow it if not then oh well i cant change your mind. It may annoying to keep blowing in just to go somewhere. Well this is my opinion.

  • It would save lives

    Its not your fault if people want to be stupid so you shouldn't be the one to pay the price. If the majority of cars have a breathalyzer crash rates would drop and the road would be safer. Driving is a privilege and a responsibility and if your not willing to do it correctly you shouldn't be able to do it at all.

  • Driving is a privilege, you don't have a right to endanger others

    The only real reason to oppose this, in my opinion, is because you want to be able to drive drunk. Drunk driving puts ithers in danger, it's a public safety issue and the government should be allowed to intervene. It should be a cost passed onto the consumer. You want to drive? You should pay for the install as a part of that privilege. I don't think heavy monitoring would be needed, just as long as the cars don't start if you have a bad blow.

  • Less death, less court time and fees

    Why continue to pay hard earned money for education and court costs, to say nothing of the time it takes to chase and fine and incarcerate the people drinking. If you have been drinking, chances are your judgement is impaired. Blow and see if you go. I support the idea 100%

  • It can only save lives

    32 percent of car crashes are caused by driver with a BAC over .08. 1.34 million people are arrested every year for DUI. An average pay 10k to settle the costs resulting in a huge amount of money spent that should be used to prevent crime not punish it. The reason why driving under the influence is a crime is because you pose a risk of harming yourself or others. I have personally been at the scene of two DUI incidents involving the deaths and maiming of people. One teen was even stopped by police on suspicion of DUI was released, her death followed 6 minutes later. A Breathalyzer would have saved her life when the people sworn to protect her failed. Breathalyzers in cars should be mandatory along with airbags, seat belts, and turn indicators.

  • Breathalyzers Could Help

    If every car had a built-in breathalyzer, there probably would be a lot fewer cases of drunken driving. This would, of course make cars more expensive, and people would have to decide whether retrofitting older cars was mandatory, so it could become very complicated and costly. The people who aren't killed, though, would probably argue it was worth the cost of their lives.

  • We must prevent drunk driving

    It should be mandatory that every car has a built in car breathalyzer because the number of drunk driving deaths is at a very high rate. This is a simple solution to that problem. Drunk drivers would be forced off the roads. Why install a car breathalyzer only in a car of a DUI convict? Why not put them in every car, so we can prevent drunk driving at its source?

  • I think that this topic is so important that I'm writing my Senior English Paper over it.

    9,967 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2014.
    10,076 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2013 - 1 every 53 minutes.
    Every day in America, another 28 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
    Drunk driving costs each adult in the United States almost $800 per year.
    Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion a year.
    In 2012, 15% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes during the week were alcohol-impaired, compared to 30% on weekends.
    In fatal crashes in 2011, the highest percentage of drunk drivers was for drivers ages 21 to 24 (32%), followed by ages 25 to 34 (30%) and 35 to 44 (24%).
    Each day, people drive drunk almost 300,000 times, but fewer than 4,000 are arrested.
    Impairment is not determined by the type of drink, but rather by the amount of alcohol drunk over time.
    Adults drank too much and got behind the wheel about 112 million times in 2010—that is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day.
    Drunk driver arrested
    Almost half of drivers killed in crashes who tested positive for drugs also had alcohol in their system.
    In 2010, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving, for an estimated total of approximately 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes or 479 episodes per 1,000 adult population. From a peak in 2006, such episodes decreased 30% through 2010. Men accounted for 81% of all episodes with young men aged 21-34 years accounting for 32% of all episodes. Additionally, 85% of alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking, and the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes.
    Every 90 seconds a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.
    In 2011 1.2 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
    It can cost another’s life. Alcohol-related traffic crashes don’t only affect the impaired driver. One third of alcohol-involved traffic fatalities are passengers, occupants in other vehicles or pedestrians.
    An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest.
    Every 90 seconds a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.
    Drivers with a BAC level of .08 or higher in fatal crashes in 2012 were seven times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired than were drivers with no alcohol.
    Males were more likely than females (15.1% vs. 7.9%) to drive drunk.
    132 billion dollars is spent annually on alcohol-impaired motor vehicle crashes.
    Between 60% and 80% of drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive.
    Law enforcement made 1.4 million arrests for driving under the influence in 2010. 20% are repeat offenders.
    23 million Americans are currently addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Alcohol abuse accounts for the majority 18.7 million people.

  • AkesdgfjnihjkbwseDFNMIOJK h jhh j j j

    Jnhwdfgkhl j j j j j jj j jjk ijkjk jlj jhjkhoj hoij n n b n n n n n n jn n jn bmnsdk bd bv mmvc mkc mk mc vm nm n n n n n n n n jk vmkdmv kdm vkdv v kksd m mkl,.

  • AkesdgfjnihjkbwseDFNMIOJK h jhh j j j

    Jnhwdfgkhl j j j j j jj j jjk ijkjk jlj jhjkhoj hoij n n b n n n n n n jn n jn bmnsdk bd bv mmvc mkc mk mc vm nm n n n n n n n n jk vmkdmv kdm vkdv v kksd m mkl,.

  • Shutting the barn door

    As usual, the government is doing what is does best. Shutting the barn door after the cows got out. My opinion is, make anyone who has EVER been stopped and had a blood alcohol content register on the breathalyzer purchase and maintain a breathalyzer in their own cars. If they get caught again driving drunk and that car is without one, then levy a huge fine and possibly jail time. Do NOT punish those of us who don't drink let alone drink and drive.

  • No because it is....

    Because it is not with the constitution and it will break the law if they do that in a car unless the law makes you have one in your car. That really sucks for you but it does not hurt me at all so that how it is for you but not with me.

  • Support drinking + support cars = ?

    The other "NO" votes have this pretty much locked down. Vastly unbalanced cost vs benefit. Impingement on the majority of drivers' rights. Yes, it does prevent a pretty serious evil, but let's look at other ways to prevent that evil.

    Especially in America, but pretty much worldwide, there is a culture of drinking, and in recent generations, that culture has evolved from drinking, to drinking to get drunk. Football and other sports endorse drinking so heavily that being a fan and being a drinker are synonymous. I know that if I were an officer of the law, with a stack of blank citations, a stadium on a Sunday would be a decent stakeout. Now, I wouldn't condone a universal ban on booze. That has been tested before, and we know the ramifications. However, we understand that alcohol and driving are a bad mix. So then, why do we continue to advertise drinking outside the home? At bars? At games? At festivals? If the evil is that severe, why are these companies allowed to pump revenue into ads that create this drunk drinking culture? There's a good starting point for change.

    Also, especially in America, there is a culture whose motto is, "Driving is a right, not a privilege." Should be flipped. If people really believed that driving was a privilege, and just one out of 100 different ways to get from A to B, I would expect DD rates to decline. Instead, autos dominate American roadways, and in our autos, we dominate the road, even drunk. It's a cultural thing. Change the culture, change the thing. All I'm saying.

  • Are you seriously kidding me?

    Instead of putting money into some government-mandated breathalyzers in cars, why not put that money towards education programs that teach against drunk driving and how bad it is. Scare kids by showing them gruesome pictures of what happens in car accidents, show them sad stories of people's family members who were killed in these accidents, or brain-damaged. If you scare them enough they will not even think twice about it. People should be smart enough not to drink and drive regardless. If you put breathalyzers mandated by the government in cars I swear that will be the first step to America becoming a new-age Nazi Germany. Tyrannical governments anyone? Yes, i'll have a side order of police state with that...

  • Why would you need this?

    Why would you need this?! If you drunk and decide to drive it YOUR FAULT no one else. This would make people look dumb with this in their car because i have a neighbor with one and he has to blow every time to start his car to drive back and home.

  • No we shouldn't

    America is like kindergarden all over again.. One stupid kid falls of the swing and the swings are banned just because he fell. Now all of the people who used those swings how they were supposed to can't use the swing at all. I believe it is the same concept with this case. As much as I am totally against drunk driving and don't and will never drink myself, I'm not spending the extra taxes to install a breathalyzer in EVERY car just because one stupid teenager went out and got himself drunk.

  • Added cost for little benefit

    The added cost of a breathalyzer for every car on the road would be huge. According to stats on MADD Canada's website, less than half of the accidents causing death in 2010 were caused by drunk driving. And when you consider the millions of cars on the road every year, that number is relatively small. So realistically this is a tax on everyone to prevent the actions of a select few.
    Now we can also look at the maintenance cost of a breathalyzer, surely there is a calibration that needs to be done to maintain accuracy. There would surely be a fee with that. There will likely be some that break, so in that event does it render the car completely inoperable? What happens if a friend blows in the breathalyzer for the driver? Has it really prevented anything? The breathalyzer also doesn't stop all impaired driving, so are we saying that drunk driving merits added expense for everyone while people that drive while high on anything else get away unscathed?

    Also, some people share cars with family or friends, so there is a hygienic component that would have to be considered. There would be disposable mouth pieces, likely a filter, perhaps a monthly clean out depending on how frequently the car is used. How would the rental car industry fair with such expenses?
    Then we must consider older cars, are they exempt from the requirement? And if so then what stops the most chronic offenders from purchasing old cars so that they can simply get away with their poor choices?
    In the end this system would likely hurt the law abiding citizen far more than it would help solve the problem of drunk driving.

  • This is wrong!

    It is the culture of drinking and the perceived invincibility of drunk drivers that is the problem. Why should the ENTIRE population including people who do not drink at all be punished. Why is alcohol so easily accessible to all Americans?, Why is it that nearly all movies aimed towards all young people (Young adults) centered around the excessive and possibly dangerous amount of alcohol. Why is it that drinking culture is so highly popularized that it is even considered abnormal to be sober at a party (Including illicit substances). I think instead of punishing people with these expensive devices, Tax alcohol. Make is less accessible including taking it out of the supermarkets, making it less attractive, and making American culture about having a good time while drinking responsibly.

  • No not every car

    Not every car because every where you go you will have to blow into it, and that will take away your breath. Also, sometimes you can't always blow into it, even if you aren't drunk. It is really hard to blow in. That is why not every car should have a breathalyzer in it, just the cars with the people who got drunk.

  • You could cause yourself to get in a accident

    When using it in the car you lose focus on the rode.Then that could cause death or really bad damage to yourself or others.But you could have one at home so you could use it before you drive after drinking.Or you shouldn't even drive at all after drinking.So no breathalyzers should not be in cars


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.