Neal's Workshop

Drivers who are convicted for DUI may soon be facing even stricter punishment if Mothers Against Drunk Driving (They're "MADD" in more ways than two) get their way. Per an article from the New York Times:

In the first phase of the plan, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, backed by a national association of state highway officials and car manufacturers, will announce here on Monday a campaign to change drunken driving laws in 49 states to require that even first offenders install a device that tests drivers and shuts down the car if it detects alcohol.

Read it again.

Some serious alarm bells should be going off about now: the "first phase" of a plan to make traffic offenders blow into a breathalyzer before operating their vehicle, endorsed by overprotective mourning mothers, cops and car manufacturers.

Follow up:

Those who see this proposal as a good idea should use a little imagination. MADD would love to see these devices installed in every new vehicle produced and retrofitted to existing cars on the highway. The staggering financial costs of such regulation aside, imagine the cost to your freedom.

It's easy to demonize drunk driving because we all have been told that alcohol is baaaaaad and drunk driving is a big no-no. I do not know a single adult who has never driven while under the influence of alcohol. Guess what? I also don't know a single adult who has ever gotten into an accident while doing such illegal driving. Of course, none of these are bullet-proof arguments, but they anecdotally illustrate reality for many of us: driving after drinking isn't necessarily evil or harmful. The same goes for driving while eating, smoking or talking on your cell phone.

And a lingering question remains: is it right to restrict the freedoms of those who have harmed no one? Sure, preventative measures can be cost-effective and efficient, but with regulation, it's always is a slippery slope.

If you want to ponder further arguments regarding breathalyzer interlocks, you might be interested in reading a couple arguments psuedo-for and against the interlocks over on Catallarchy.

Rather than rehash points others have made, I want you to imagine a future of driving - one increasingly probable should regulation be passed requiring breathalyzer interlocks be installed in the vehicles of DUI-offenders.

To drive in the future ...

All drivers must pass a breathalyzer interlock test in order to operate their vehicles.

Drivers who receive speeding tickets must install governors that restrict maximum speed based on posted road signs.

Drivers who run red lights and stop signs receive equipment that forces the vehicle to stop on red, slow on yellow, stop at stop signs for a full two seconds, slow on yield.

Drivers convicted for driving while on their cell phone are required to install cell phone scramblers in their cars that prevent incoming and outgoing calls from being placed while the car is in motion.

All drivers who receive traffic citations recieve red dot decals that must be placed on the rear and front of their vehicles. The more points associated with any given traffic offense, the more dots received. Neon yellow dots are used for red vehicles.

Car keys must be checked at the door at sporting events to be returned to drivers after satisfactory completion of a BAC test.

Drivers receive GPS chips that are monitored by central traffic police. Erratic driving behaviors are flagged and police are dispatched to intercept and investigate the offending vehicle.

Chips are placed in vehicles to record driving behavior. Periodic downloads from the chips are performed by traffic police. Tickets are issued for any traffic violations noted.

In the future, driving is entirely regulated. Police can pull you over for any reason. You have to log daily commutes with the local traffic cops and notify state traffic police when going on interstate travel.

Parting thoughts:

The above scenarios may sound extreme: surely such intrusive regulations could never happen here in the so-called "Land of the Free". Right? I would have said the same about habeas corpus.

It is easy to demonize something like "drunk driving", but we must protect the freedoms of every individual, even those whose actions may convey some amount of risk. We can't just fight for the freedoms of those who's behavior we find acceptable. And though drunk driving can be dangerous and deadly, is the potential for harm enough to restrict freedom? If it is enough to restrict the liberty of a few, when is it not enough to restrict the liberty of us all?