Should Your Car Test if You've Been Drinking?

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Domestic Issues

(Credit: CBS)

A debate is raging over an effort to develop technology effectively shutting down cars when alcohol is detected in a driver's bloodstream - with proponents saying it would be an optional tool that will save lives and critics contending that a nanny-state government will use it to keep Americans from driving home after drinking a single beer at a baseball game.

The catalyst is a push by New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer to provide $60 million over five years to develop in-vehicle technology that would recognize a driver's blood alcohol concentration.

The goal is a non-intrusive alcohol level detection system, something that requires virtually no effort (unlike the ignition interlocks imposed on convicted drunk drivers that require breath samples to start a car). While it's too early to know what the technology would look like, it could be anything from a system that can read a finger when it touches a steering wheel to a mechanism that detects the presence of alcohol from a driver's normal breathing.

Schumer made the case for the legislation today near Buffalo, next to a woman whose daughter was killed in a drunk driving accident that would not have taken place had the daughter not been able to get being the wheel.

"One drunk driving accident can rip apart a family and change a community forever; it's a problem that touches more lives every year and we need a fresh approach," Schumer said of the legislation, known as The Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere (ROADS SAFE) Act, which was introduced in the Senate in February. "This legislation gets to the heart of the problem by making sure that drinkers can't even turn the ignition on in their car and pull out onto the road where they're a danger."

Parents, Schumer suggests, could install the technology in their teens' cars - guaranteeing that if they drink they won't be able to drive, and saving lives in the process.

The senator insists the technology would not be required by the federal government, though states could potentially mandate it. "The first job is to perfect the technology," Schumer said, according to the Buffalo News. "Then it will be up to each state legislature to decide whether they want to mandate it in the cars sold in that state or just limited it, and we'll have to decide that."

But critics say there is ample evidence that interest groups will eventually push the federal government to install it in every car in America. And they say that it will mean that even simply having one glass of wine with dinner could make it impossible to operate a vehicle.

Sarah Longwell, the managing director of the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association, argues that the group that would receive the funding - the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program - has made clear that it wants the technology in every car in America. (For proof, Longwell sent Hotsheet a slide from a presentation DADDS gave last year suggesting exactly that.) Further, she said, because the devices would allow for a margin of error below the .08 percent blood alcohol level legal limit, people might effectively be deemed impaired by their vehicle after only one drink.

"We're a restaurant trade association, and we want ten people to be able to come in and have one drink," she said. "Obviously we never want one person to come in and have ten. We think it is important that people be able to have a glass of wine at a dinner, a beer at a ballgame, and then drive home. It's a perfectly reasonable thing for people to do."

Longwell says the primary reason that the devices would be set below .08 percent (she says they would potentially be at .03 or .04) is that alcohol needs time to work its way through the body. The argument is that since someone could have three quick drinks and jump in the car - keeping their blood alcohol level below .08, even if they are well on their way to crossing it - it would be seen as necessary to set the device to a lower level.

DADSS' Susan Ferguson seemed to concede as much in a story last year in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, saying it's safer to err on the side of keeping drunk drivers off the roads. But Wade Newton, spokesperson for Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, says that's not the case - the law is .08, he said, and the devices would thus be set there. (The reason Newton is speaking on behalf of DADSS is that the group is a joint project of the federal government and a consortium of foreign and domestic auto companies. DADSS is also backed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Distilled Spirits Council, among others.)

In addition, Newton says that the DADSS program and its backers have "no firm position" on whether the devices should go in every vehicle, calling it a "policy issue." The goal, he says, is simply to create technology that could potentially go in all vehicles, and then let lawmakers and the public decide whether they should mandate as much or instead use the technology more selectively.

DADSS estimates that installing the technology in every car would save 9,000 lives every year - and Newton notes that "the very crux of the technology is that if you're sober, you're not even going to know it's in the car." But Longwell, operating on the assumption that the device will end up in every car, counters that "there are much better ways to save lives with regard to drunk driving than by going after the entire American population."

"You're talking about putting a piece of technology in every single car in America to go after a very small population of offenders," she says. "And so what we would advocate is let's find the best ways to get those drunk drivers off the road without coming up with an approach that targets all Americans whether or not they drink, or drink responsibility."

Schumer's office says Longwell's argument is disingenuous.

"The legislation does not require vehicles have the technology installed, but gives law enforcement and parents an option to combat drunk driving and its tragic consequences," said Schumer spokesman Mike Morey.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

25 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 25 Comments


by seaglassman August 7, 2010 4:32 PM EDT: I owned bars and niteclubs for 25 yrs. and as far back as 1990 I was trying to lobby my Rep. to look into the possibility of creating such devices for cars. It's the only real way to stop drunk driving. All the other ways do little to stop drunks who care nothing about the law. As well meaning as MADD and all the other orgs. trying to lecture the public on this they are ineffective. Even harsh laws enforced as they are does little but garnish Ins. companies bottoms line and lawyers bank accts. We need an intelligent auto just like we had when people rode horses. Horses had horse sense and would throw a drunk off many times killing the drunk but nobody else. Sometimes what we think is progress is the opposite. Cars and alcohol DO NOT mix even remotely. Take the car out of the drunks hands and he/she is just a drunk going nowhere.; Reply to this comment


by pensacola8-2009 July 9, 2010 12:34 PM EDT: 34 million seems like a lot of money, but DUI prosecutions all across the country cost taxpayers over a billion dollars to sustain as an annual expense.

The break-even point on the investment is expected to occur within 5 years of the implementation.

Other ideas coming over the horizon are cars that won't start until a drivers' license and insurance card is swiped and validated across a wireless data network through a clearing house. This effort is designed to stop un-licensed drivers and un-insured motorists from starting any vehicles. In some areas of the nation, 1 out of 5 cars on the road are being illegally operated.; Reply to this comment


by 6591Hou July 9, 2010 11:37 AM EDT: Repeat driving under the influence offenders should have licenses permanently revoked. Injuring or killing someone while driving under the influence is no different than assault with a deadly weapon, and should be punished accordingly.
Drive the point home that people choose to do this, and by doing so they choose to pay the penalty if caught.; Reply to this comment


by 6591Hou July 9, 2010 11:26 AM EDT: Schumer made the case for the legislation today near Buffalo, next to a woman whose daughter was killed in a drunk driving accident that would not have taken place had the daughter not been able to get being the wheel.

"One drunk driving accident can rip apart a family and change a community forever; it's a problem that touches more lives every year and we need a fresh approach," Schumer said of the legislation, known as The Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere (ROADS SAFE) Act, which was introduced in the Senate in February. "This legislation gets to the heart of the problem by making sure that drinkers can't even turn the ignition on in their car and pull out onto the road where they're a danger."

Mr. Shumer "the heart of the problem" is not the car, it's the person who CHOOSES to get behind the wheel after impairing themselves. It's called being 'personally responsible', something our culture doesn't seem to understand anymore.; Reply to this comment

by joelycra July 9, 2010 10:01 AM EDT

Fifteen minutes after the first unit is installed on a car, there will be a business somewhere that will bypass it for you for $100. For $60 I can buy a pocket-sized device that will not only knock out your OnStar, but will also disable any GPS tracking of the vehicle. I also like the way he said this would address the "heart of the problem"... The heart of the problem is not drinking and driving... the heart of the problem is drinking. This will do nothing to stop drinking, and the government should well remember what happened last time they tried prohibition.

Reply to this comment


by user000049586849302948602 July 9, 2010 10:18 AM EDT: Only, presumably, that would be illegal.


by 6591Hou July 9, 2010 11:32 AM EDT: user000049586849302948602 - How many things today are being 'unlocked' for a fee that are probably illegal to do so?

by book_of_wally July 9, 2010 9:38 AM EDT

The insurance companies are behind this I suspect and will they lower insurance premiums or stuff the money in their pockets if passed? You get two guesses and the first one doesnt count.

Reply to this comment


by user000049586849302948602 July 9, 2010 10:20 AM EDT: True. I think they were behind the seat belt laws and I have yet to see me rates go down since those took effect.

Still, as long as alcohol is legal, there will be people who get drunk and want to drive. Anything that protects my family from irresponsible people posing a mortal danger I have to call a good thing.


by 6591Hou July 9, 2010 11:31 AM EDT: user000049586849302948602 - "Anything that protects my family from irresponsible people posing a mortal danger I have to call a good thing."

Exactly where does the state take over for personal responsibility and accountability? Using the qualifier "Anything" opens up a slippery slope for the government to take over your life - all in the name of 'protecting you from irresponsible people'.

by lilbear925 July 9, 2010 9:19 AM EDT

This sort of thing looks like it could be being lobbied by the taxi drivers of America. Get the gummint to stop messing with our vehicles and concentrate on things that matter -- like illegal immigrants who have been deported four times and keep coming back to kill, rape, rob and steal. Leave our cars alone. The auto industry is in enough crap already due to gummint intervention!

Reply to this comment


by user000049586849302948602 July 9, 2010 10:17 AM EDT: I guess you might think drunk drivers mattered if you had a family member maimed or killed by one.

by 1American July 9, 2010 9:19 AM EDT

The SCOTUS ruled against Chuckies favorite ban (guns) twice so now he's after your cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters and riding lawnmowers. What's next, Government permission to own an internal combustion engine? Oops sorry, I forgot, that's AlGore's shtick!

Reply to this comment


by user000049586849302948602 July 9, 2010 10:16 AM EDT: If you're so concerned about government imposing on your freedom to drink and drive, you might want to consider going to AA.


by phydeux2 July 9, 2010 7:57 AM EDT: There goes Chuck Schumer, trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives! Pretty soon people like him are going to make it illegal to be a responsible adult without having to be told how to do it.; Reply to this comment

by Fatesrider July 8, 2010 10:55 PM EDT

It's amazing how many people get their exercise by jerking knees and jumping to conclusions.

No rationale or reasoned argument will displace the godly right people seem to think they have to drink and drive. Never mind that driving is a privilege granted by the state to worthy and capable adults - not a constitutional right. Never mind that drunk driving kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. never mind the savings in insurance rates if your car has one of these devices (Less risk of you drinking and driving means less chance of them having to pay a claim for your idiocy which means lower rates for you).

All that pales in significance if some one can't drink a beer and get into their car.

God, please end the world now. Humanity is too stupid to exist.

Reply to this comment


by alex_makes_comments July 9, 2010 1:14 AM EDT: Very true.

Having a slow reaction time also causes accidents. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. So how about a gadget that checks your reaction time (Using the Bop It game would be cute). If you're too slow, the car locks up for a day. After all it's a privilege.

Also, long fingernails impair driving, so do hairdos that invade your field of vision (Like Justin Bieber). So The SS-DAD organization should also invent something that measures and cuts fingernails and dispenses hair nets.


by jtdev1 July 9, 2010 9:03 AM EDT: How about a cell phone interrupter?

Make-up interrupter?

Nail Polishing interrupter?

Newspaper Reading interrupter?

We already have the special "Black Box" that records your driving prior to any accident requiring the airbags to deploy. Except the information it records doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the POLICE. You have NO RIGHT to it at all.

Also there is that On-Star which can turn off your car, record where you have been, how fast you drive, and even turn on the microphone so someone there (or police) can hear everything you are saying in your car (without a wiretap warrant)

Police state??? We've got it already.