Should DUI interlocks be mandatory on all cars?

Should DUI interlocks be mandatory on all cars?

The USA has c260 million registered motor vehicles.CDC cites Dept. Transport research showing the cost of DUI related accidents is $51 billion per year. 1.4 million people are convicted of DUI related offences - costing courts, police and general productivity at least an additional $14 billion per year. In addition 10,000 people are killed each year in DUI related accidents - with an insurance payout of $250K that'-s an additional $2.5 billion - (on top of the minor injury and third party insurance claims which would likely be north of $25 billion) creating a total economic loss due to DUI of at least: $67bn pa. Info from CDC website. [In addition to the personal / social costs of deaths, injuries and criminal convictions].----The case for interlocks is both economic - i.e. it generates a return on investment and redirects GDP to higher valued output, as well as social - fewer people end up with criminal convictions, fewer people die, fewer people need emergency services etc.....A driving interlock costs around $300 installed (interlock manufacturer websites) and can be installed on every car for a cost of $78 billion (a one-off cost) per car. Since US cars have an average age of 10.8 years (LA Times and other newspapers) that'-s $7.22bn p.a. in cost of installation, generating an economic Internal Rate of Return of 928% - assuming they are 100% effective - even if they are not a 900% IRR is massive. The Government can fund the scheme from insurers- Insurers win from a one-off reduction in claims and an ongoing reduction in the volatility of payments.Evidence indicates interlocks are not 100% effective but they are still highly effective - with the biggest deficiency in interlock programs being that people just don'-t install them when ordered to do so.-----The case against is identical to the case against seat belt laws:"-F-YOU I'-m not blowing into a tube to start my car!"-The idealistic "-its an invasion of privacy"- and the government should not be interfering in how we get to drive cars approach. In addition, using an interlock while driving can be dangerous- in some cases people have crashed as a result.The special interest case against is that it makes car repair for minor accidents more expensive because you lose the $51 billion market for DUI related repairs - and it puts a bunch of auto repair people out of work - [but their unemployment benefits can be funded from the surplus created by the scheme]-----So what do you all think?


they are very easy to get around the system the easiest is having some one else blow in it for you, compressed keyboard cleaners, etc, waste of money and time


In other countries, it is illegal to drive with any detectable amount of alcohol in your system. It is just really socially taboo. In these countries, if you are caught with alcohol, you get your license taken away for life. Why not just do it like that?And I really do believe that the government has gone way too far. It is true that people die from drunk drivers, however it greatly worries me how involved the government has become in our lives. In other words, these people who die in crashes are not worth saving if the government must directly put these devices in all vehicles.It is just not worth allowing our government to get that much power over us.Have you ever read 1984 written by George Orwell? It really is a nice book.Edit: I am a huge child passenger safety advocate (and safety advocate in general)- I have a ton of information regarding child passenger safety. Do you know what I have learned? The American Academy of Pedatrics (AAP) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommend that children ride rear facing for as long as possible, until the child's convertible car seat (not infant seat) has been genuinely outgrown by weight or height. Many children can ride rear facing until they are at least 3-4 years old with convertible car seats in the United States market. In other words, should best practice recommendations be made into law? If so, then this is what the law would look like:-Every child must ride in a rear facing car seat until they are at least 4 years old-Every child should ride in a forward facing harnessed car seat until they are mature enough for a booster seat-Every child needs to ride in a booster seat until they pass the 5 step test (roughly around 5 feet tall and 10-12 years old) for each vehicle.-Children under age 13 must ride in the backseat- no exceptions.-All child safety retraints need to be installed according to the vehicle and car seat manual.If children have outgrown a car seat in one position before this is met, then parents need to buy another car seat with higher weight and height limits in that position before these requirements are met. The problem is that laws get tricky and therefore require more regulation. Because their will be children who outgrow their rear facing car seat before age 4 either because their torso is too long or they are too heavy. And the car seats that generally accomodate a child up to age 4 are more expensive. For example, the Diono Radian R120 goes up to 45 lbs in the rear facing position and costs about $260. Another issue is if the car seat can be properly installed in the vehicle.I am for educating people than imposing regulations on them. Where does the line for the government to stop to "save lives"?


Studies also show that talking on your cell phone is almost as dangerous as being drunk while driving. Hands free devices haven't shown significant differences. And having kids jumping back and down in the back seat is just as bad. Let's put cell phone jammers, mandatory kid restraints (which are really already in place and highly ignored) in place, and a restriction on a loose dog in your vehicle. Let's also restrict putting on makeup while on the way to work, eating, and drinking in the car, and all restrictions will be in force. I'm not justifying drunk driving, but there are laws in place to prevent it. Sticking gadgets in everyone's car is one more step towards more and more regulation.


If they were completely free and fell out of the sky.... not a bad idea.Otherwise... you are imposing a cost on the vast majority to prevent the sins of a tiny minority..... and THAT is no solution at all.Seat belts prevent injury in dozens of different sorts of accidents with an even larger number of causes. What kind do interlocks prevent? And what prevents a drunk from having his 4 year old daughter blow in the tube??


NOWhat you propose is a MINORITY trying to impose it's morals on the MAJORITY. THAT, is what happened with Prohibition, and look how well THAT worked! This idea, like gun control, has good intent, but FAILS in practice. You can't legislate morality or stupidity. The real problem really comes in with the majority who are law abiding citizens who do not drink. YOU would impose a breath test on THEM because you think they MIGHT drink and drive.YOU assume everyone guilty and demand proof of innocence before they can drive their car! Last time I looked, in this country it was "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around which is what this interlock DOES if installed in every car! Now, if YOU bear the cost, out of YOUR POCKET, I'll consider it.But if _I_ have to pay, and I am a teetotaler, THAT will present a problem for YOU, big time... And you do NOT want ME to become angry with YOU... When has any law stopped stupid idiots from BEING stupid idiots and doing stupid idiot things?


Do you want to pay for this? Seat belts aren't nearly as expensive to put in and maintain. Most people who crash as a result of the interlock were likely drunk and having someone blow for them. Also people don't crash from wearing a seat belt, so that proves the case ISN'T identical.


Accidents can be avoided through car owner's discipline. DUI interlocks may be beneficial in some ways, but on the other hand, there are still some considerations with regards to some other effects to the owners.Source(s):auto service -





Popular Q&A

What would be best amount of auto & homeowner insurance to have including umbrella coverage in NJ?
Well, no one here knows you! I can tell you what I usually tell people: you take out half million limits on your auto and homeowners, then get the umbrella policy with whatever REAL limits you need. It's not hard to buy million dollar increments, up to ten million. After that, it can...

How to get car rental insurance in Canada?
It depends upon the car rental company as some companies include insurance amount in their final quote and some don't. So people have insurance on their credit cards so they prefer renting car on them rather than taking any extra insurance. The person who is paying through his credit must be...

Which american auto insurance company covers you if you travel to canada ?
Unlike Mexico which requires you to buy their insurance, Canada will recognize your current policy as a tourist in their country.

Can I buy US auto insurance to cover my Canada vehicle?
Not if you live in Canada. Plus, some provinces have their own auto insurance that you must buy. Check out this website, which goes by province:Source(s):…

Was convicted of a dui and now have a motorcycle do i need insurance?
An SR-22 isn't a type of insurance coverage, but rather proof that you have insurance.It is notification from your insurance company to the DMV that you have auto liability insurance in effect in the State of California which satisfies the minimum insurance coverage required by the State.This...