Editorial: All drivers should be subject to breath tests

For as long as drunken driving has been a danger to motorists,
there has been no surefire way to prevent someone from having too
many drinks that end with tragic consequences.

Now, however, advancing technology has provided a powerful
prevention tool.

Recently, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has spoken in favor of
installing devices into the cars of people convicted of drunken
driving which would not allow them to drive if they weren’t
sober.

The devices, called “breath-test interlock devices”
by Newsday.com, are mini-breathalyzers that require motorists to
pass a breath test before starting their cars. The devices may also
require a periodic resampling of breath while driving to make sure
the person who took the test is in fact driving the car.

“The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today
is because they can,” MADD President Glynn Birch said at a
news teleconference. The installation of these devices in the cars
of drivers convicted of drunken driving, the group feels, will
reduce drunken driving-related deaths, which usually average 13,000
a year.

Although the Daily Bruin Editorial Board agrees with
MADD’s assertions and thinks these interlock devices could
greatly benefit motorists, we would go one step further.

These devices shouldn’t just be installed in the cars of
convicted drunken drivers but also in all new cars.

If this were the case, the number of drinks one has when going
out would be far more scrutinized. After all, would you be willing
to have more than two or three drinks if it meant you
wouldn’t be able to drive home?

Like smokers when faced with anti-smoking laws, some may call
this invasive and say it compromises their freedom. Others may say
they don’t even drink and that there’s no reason for
them to pay extra to buy a car with something they won’t even
use.

Yet there is a valid counterargument to both statements. First,
what freedom does having to take a Breathalyzer to start your car
compromise? Your ability to drive drunk and kill people?

Second, driving is a privilege ““ not a right. People are
required by law to pay for all sorts of things they may not want to
pay for when buying a car, such as insurance, working seat belts
and working headlights. If you want to drive a car, these things
come with the territory.

Moreover, people against this would reconsider once they realize
how paying a little more money for a car could contribute to the
common good.

Since all drivers would now be subject to passing a breath test
to turn on their cars, it would also mean parents would have one
less thing to obsessively worry about while waiting for their
teenagers to come home safely. When faced with paying extra money
or paying with their child’s life, which they can’t put
a price on, what would a parent choose?

It would be extremely difficult for something like this to be
passed into law, aside from the obvious arguments about privacy and
fairness in charging everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Alcohol
companies would likely fight this tooth and nail as it would
potentially reduce their sales at bars.

Yet it’s clear from the statistics that punishment can
only do so much. There comes a point when deterrence has to give
way to prevention.

If 13,000 lives lost each year isn’t enough to spur
change, it’s chilling to imagine what would be.