Should Your Car Test if You’ve Been Drinking?

This article, from CBS News, talks about the ROADS SAFE Act and both sides of the argument about whether or not it is a good idea. The first thing that this article mentioned, that I had yet to understand, was that this technology would be an optional tool to put into cars. The ROADS SAFE Act is just for the funding to research the technology. After the technology is designed, it would be up to the government to decide if this would be something required for every car or an optional feature. While there are many people who are for this type of technology, there are definitely people who are against it, especially because they feel as if it will be something required in cars and that it will become very intrusive and that it could cause people who were not drunk from being unable to drive their cars. While the legal limit is .08, some people feel as if this technology would be set so that the cars detected alcohol at .03 or .04. The reason for this is because alcohol needs time to work its way through the body. Someone could have a bunch of quick drinks and then get into their car, but their blood alcohol level would still be below .08 because they hadn’t given the alcohol time to absorb into their bloodstream. Setting the limit on these devices to a lower blood alcohol level would help prevent these types of situations because the system would detect the alcohol even before it increased the blood alcohol level, but it also poses a problem for the person that goes and has one drink at dinner and is still capable of driving home. As stated before, this technology could potentially save 9,000 lives by eliminating the possibility of drunk driving, lives that are invaluable.

Representative Jerry F. Costello

I read a letter that Representative Jerry F. Costello, who is a Democrat from Illinois, wrote regarding the ROADS SAFE Act and his opposition. I thought that it would be very interesting to read an opinion of someone who was opposed to the act in order to get the other perspective. Costello raised some very good points on why the ROADS SAFE Act is not a good idea, and I think that there are definitely things that would need to be thought of before this t4echnology was created. The first thing that he mentioned was false positives. There are many medications, mouthwashes, and toothpastes that contain a large amount of alcohol in them. If the system were to detect this alcohol, the car would not start, even though the driver wasn’t drunk. Next, the idea of a device malfunction was introduced. Like any other electronic equipment, it is very likely that the technology would fail. What would happen in a life or death situation when the car couldn’t be started due to an error? Or what if the car was already started and then it malfunctioned and turned the car off? This could create potential dangers that could result in major accidents or fatalities. The last thing that I thought was definitely something that would be important to consider is the price. Currently, our economy is suffering and prices of cars are increasing, but would this technology cause an even greater increase? All of these things would need to be addressed and resolved before these devices could go into production.

Udall, Corker Introduce ROADS SAFE Act

This article that I read goes into more detail about the ROADS SAFE Act and explains what its purpose is. The ROADS SAFE Act was introduced by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.  The entire legislation was designed to reduce the amount of drunk driving crashes and fatalities by developing new technologies that prevent drunk drivers from starting their vehicles. The funding from this program would go to NHTSA and DADSS who would use this money to explore a variety of emerging technologies such as devices that determine a driver’s blood alcohol level by touching the steering wheel or engine start button. In addition, technology is being researched that would have sensors in a car that would passively monitor a driver’s breath or eye movements in order to determine their sobriety (or lack thereof). The entire purpose of this legislation is to eliminate drunk driving fatalities and save lives because just one drunk driving death should be unacceptable throughout our society.

The ROADS SAFE Act

I read a bill that was introduced to Congress that directly pertains to my topic for this project. This bill that has been introduced to congress is called the Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere Act of 2011, or the ROADS SAFE Act of 2011. This bill was designed as a way to prevent drunk driving injuries and fatalities across the country. Currently, 1/3 of all highway fatalities in the United States are due to alcohol-impaired accidents. If alcohol detection technologies were more widely used throughout the United States to help prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from driving a vehicle, it is estimated that 9,000 road traffic deaths would be prevented. This act asks that $12,000,000 be given to the government for the next 5 years to help develop such technology to help eliminate alcohol-related fatalities.

Drunk Driving: Is the Blood Alcohol Limit Too Liberal?

This article, by TIME magazine, highlighted the differences between the laws in the United States and other countries around the world. In Sweden, the legal BAC limit for drivers is .02, while it is .08 in the U.S. Only 15 other countries throughout the world, besides the U.S., have a limit of .08. Many of the countries in Europe have laws of .05 or lower for BAC levels. As I stated in one of my earlier blog posts, .08 is way too high for the BAC limit. According to the University of Oklahoma Police Department, a 180 pound male would blow a .08 BAC level after consuming six 12 oz beers or five gin-and-tonics over just two hours. This is an extremely large amount of alcohol to be consuming, and the thought of it being a legal amount to drive with is very frightening. Having people on the road after drinking six beers is not safe at all because anybody would be slightly altered after consuming that much alcohol.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 11,773 people died in drug driving related accidents in the United States in 2008. If the United States had a lower limit, this number would definitely be a lot lower. During 2007 in the U.S., 31.7% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related while only 16% of road fatalities in Sweden were related to alcohol. This drastic difference can be attributed to the fact that Sweden changed their BAC threshold from .05 to .02. Similarly, after Switzerland and France both lowered their limits to .05, the amount of alcohol related fatalities almost instantly declined in both cases. It is very obvious that .08 is way too large of a number, and the United States needs to follow in the footsteps of other countries throughout the world and change the laws in order to keep our citizens safe on the roads.

SADD

Similar to RID and MADD, SADD is another organization that is against drunk driving, but is specifically targeted towards students. SADD used to stand for Students Against Drunk Drivers, but in 1997, the membership approved a change in SADD’s name to Students Against Destructive Decisions. This new name more appropriately highlights SADD’s goal of focusing on other areas that affect the lives of young people such as drug use, smoking, and blood-alcohol poisoning. SADD was founded by hockey coach Robert Anastas and 15 of his players after two players on the team died in alcohol related accidents less than a week apart. The focus of the group is to educate young people about the dangers of drinking and driving and of riding with someone who has been drinking.

In my opinion, one of the best parts of SADD is their Contract for Life. The Contract for Life is a contracted that was formed by SADD with the intent of being signed by a “young person” and a parent or other caring adult. The young person who signs the contract promises to do everything in their power to avoid making decisions that jeopardize their health or safety. They vow to recognize the dangers of alcohol and drugs and to pledge to use their best effort to remain free from alcohol and drugs. Lastly, the young person promises to never drive under the influence, to ride with an impaired driver, and to call their parents if a situation were to arise in which help was needed. The parent signs the contract promising to talk to the young person about the decisions that they will be presented with and ways in which they can remedy these tough situations. Also, the parent vows to provide safe, sober transportation for their child if there was ever a situation in which the child was in danger and that this situation would not be discussed until a later date.

This is an amazing organization because I think that it really targets students very well. Instead of simply stating that drinking is bad and that it shouldn’t be done, SADD provides ways, such s the Contract for Life, for students to have productive conversations with their loved ones and to understands the risks and consequences of drinking alcohol and taking drugs.

The link to this article is : http://issues.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/913363?sid=1023140&cid=23&oid=1023140&useConcept=False