07.02
I’m usually all for stricter laws governing who is capable of operating a motor vehicle, but a recent report in Time is painting a grim future, one where control of your car is completely out of your hands. According to the article, new legislation supported by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) will require DUI convicts in all 50 states to have an interlock system installed in their vehicle that would prevent them from driving under the influence. Intrigued? Hit the jump.
Granted, what the article asserts isn’t really all that outrageous, but it’s really only a short hop from “breathalyze convicted DUI offenders” to “breathalyze everyone” to “monitor who can drive, and when.” Paranoid? You might think so, but already some scary (and sometimes stupid) technology is making its way into cars everywhere. Ford offers a speed control system for young drivers, and several newer models now include a “black box” that allows the 5-0 to tell just who really was speeding. I’m of two minds: in some ways this technology does away with a lot of the BS we as a nation encounter every day on our freeways. But on the other I feel like it makes us less responsible and less skilled drivers.
In the specific case that Time was talking about, the mandatory installation of breathalyzers in DUI offenders’ vehicles sounds like a brilliant idea but I think a compromise needs to be made. Isn’t the whole point of a higher drinking age meant to prevent drunk drivers? If that’s the case, then lower the drinking age and use this new technology to properly target and alleviate the problem of drunk driving. I’ve argued for years that targeting legal adults and punishing them through legislation for crimes not committed based purely on statistics is unfair and unconstitutional. I think this technology can certainly make things right for everyone involved, but only if the compromise is made. Lowering the drinking age would free up valuable Police resources, saving tons of money and freeing up officers to do real law enforcement instead of standing around at DUI checkpoints. It would also put responsibility back in the hands of drivers. You either don’t drive drunk and enjoy the liberty of drinking at 18, as a legal adult, or you screw it up and have electronic nannies installed in your vehicle, since apparently you’re not capable of making adult decisions. A fair and balanced approach that targets offenders, and not bystanders. Sound off and leave a comment! [Source: Time]
That tech would take all of 45 seconds to wire around…not to mention would be incompatible with newer keyless ignition systems.
Not to mention all you need is 1 sober person around with lungs to get around it.
These are the kinds of things that get lots of support by a few very narrowly-focused groups, but ultimately fail when exposed to the public at large.
as with all tech- there are ways around it. 45 seconds? maybe if you’re an electrical engineer. the average consumer can’t change a tire, let alone wire around an ignition kill switch. incompatible? says who? it’s software. Clearly if a killswitch is going to become mandatory then current keyless entry and ignition technology would still be adapted to work with it. 1 sober person with lungs? Why wouldn’t that person just drive? you raise good points, but they’re all easily and logically explained.