John, I agree with you, she is a danger to others, because she definitely do not care about herself.

Doubtful. There was just a case in Will Co. where a person got 3 DUI's in about 9 months(at least 4 overall). He pled guilty and got only 1 year and $1700 fine.

Yeah, that makes sense. Pass on the cost of installing breathalizers into ever car onto law-abiding citizens, not to mention making everyone have to blow into a device to be able to start their car. That's a joke. That's like making everyone wear a chastity belt so no more rapes occur.

Roger - it wouldn't be on the tax payer but added to the cost of the car. I'd be all for the device in my car and I don't drink alcohol at all.

Sara, what about all the cars that do not have a breathalyzer? Who would pay to install them on my cars and your cars?
Why is it that your solution is to penalize everybody for the actions of a few?

I said newer cars. Remember when cars didn't have seat belts installed in them?

BS - how is it punishment if you're not breaking the law? Do you count being forced to wear your seat belt punishment? I recall a number of people being upset when that became a law.

if it saved one person then it's all good

Sara,
OK, so only on new cars. Who pays for them? Obviously the car manufacturers have to spend the money to purchase and install them, guess who gets to pay for them? Anyone buying a new car!!
Seatbelts are logical because everyone in a vehicle has the chance of being hurt or killed in a collision. For people who don't drink at all, or who drink responsibly or use designated drivers, there is no purpose or added protection by having an ignition lock breathalizer installed.

As I stated, it would go into the cost of the car. Who paid for the seat belts? They use to be additional cost. Air conditioning and automatic transmission are still additional cost. Who paid for air bags? Again, the cost of the car. I would be happy to pay a little extra if it was an extra measure to save my life against someone else's stupidity.

Roger - you missed my statement that I do not drink alcohol at all and I do not find this to be intrusive. If it means getting me from point a to point b without being killed or seriously injured, then why wouldn't I? DUI's are happening far too often and at all hours of the day. If you read the Patch's posts each time you'd see these crashes happen when kids are coming home from school, people are going to work, etc. It's not just middle of the night.

Sara,
It doesn't matter if you don't drink and don't find it intrusive. I do drink (responsibly) and DO find it HIGHLY intrusive and unnecessary. Besides, anyone can bypass the breathalizer by having a friend blow into it.
The other features you're describing in cars as being standard such as air conditioning and air bags only became standard because most people don't want a car without those things, and the car manufacturers want to sell cars. The government already costs us way too much money already, I don't need them forcing me to put a feature on my car that will never be needed.

Roger - you're taking this discussion way too seriously. The point I was making is it's a good sure way to get drunks off the road. If you can suggest a better way to stop DUI Crashes from happening, please do so.

I don't feel I'm taking it way too seriously. You're proposing that all new cars should be manufactured to include a breathalizer ignition lock device, and I think that is a terrible idea. I didn't come here to offer ideas to curb drunk driving. That doesn't mean I can't critique yours.

That's fine. But I feel if you took a poll of every driver in America, you'd find the majority are against the seat belt laws. Far too many people feel it infringes on their rights.

I suggest you stop by an event that MADD or AIMM hosts. Visit with the victims. There are far too many permanently brain damaged. Then visit with the parents who had to bury their child way too soon. If something so simple as blowing into a device to start your car can save just one life, save someone from permanent disability. Then it's worth it.

Sorry, it's AAIM not AIMM.

Do you have a reliable source to back up your assertion that most drivers are against seatbelt laws? I find that to be highly unlikely. Besides, nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle, it is a privilege.
There are a lot of laws that could be passed relating to a variety of issue that could save lives. That does not mean that they should exist.

No data, that's why I suggested a poll. I am basing this off the complaints from when "Click it or Ticket" became a law. The outrage over their rights! To this day when there are seat belt enforcement stops, there's always people complaining (mainly due to them getting a ticket) that it shouldn't be a law. The point is, everyone complains, then everyone gets over it. Why not save a life if we can?

Everyone complains because they got caught!! You don't hear many people complaining about laws or cops until they get caught doing something illegal, then suddenly it's a stupid law or the cop's fault for enforcing it.

First, excuse my mistype of a word. Lord knows no one else here ever has a typo. I would never suggest banning the sale of alcohol. I don't care who drinks to excess. I do care when they take it out on the streets.