» Home » Cars & Transport
It Is Good To Have Random Breath Tests For Drivers
It can give people precaution, and therefore reduce the chance of drunk driving.
 uberlovely  08 Feb 2008 12:43
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
Random breath testing has been in existence for over 30 years where I live, and countless lives (of both car drivers/passengers and pedestrians) have been saved.
 
 GrahamC  01 Aug 2013 07:17
 Add a Comment
 
 
A drunk driver won't always be spotted by a cop. So random breathe tests will help find more of the dangerous, drunk drivers on the road.
 
 t_m_w_e_95  07 Dec 2012 14:13
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree! TO many people get away with drunk driving!
 
 Monique  02 Oct 2008 17:01
 Add a Comment
 
 
I think that every car should have a tube you have to breathe into before you can start your car. If you have had to much to drink then you can drive plan and simple. But for a first step I think that there should be random stops I would rather spend 30mins waiting in line for the test knowing that this is taking people off the road that might run into a car with a women and her 2 kids killing them all.
 
 LME  05 Jun 2008 04:31
 Add a Comment
 
 
Yes it does create and idea that there is far more chance of being caught and making less people would drink and drive
 
 calum-r  17 May 2008 12:24
 Add a Comment
 
 
I do not have a problem with random check stops, I would prefer to get stopped and see others stopped than waiting for injury or worse death from an accident, with that I also believe if you are caught drinking and driving even once you should lose your license for good. If there were worse consequences maybe people would thinking twice about drinking and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. Lets face it, when it comes down to it a vehicle is just as much a deadly weapon as anything else. When random check stops could save lives I don't see a problem with it.
 
 Untoldrose  20 Apr 2008 18:02
 Add a Comment
 
 
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you're in favour of drug testing for other things like jobs, why be against it for drivers?

In Canada, if the police smell alcohol and demand a breath sample and you refuse, you are automatically guilty of drinking and driving. (No, they don't arrest people unless there's a suspicion of alcohol.) The law works.
 
 K9  20 Apr 2008 17:40
 Add a Comment
 
 
I think it should happen people shouldn't even be drinking and driving...
 
 831local  10 Mar 2008 17:35
 Add a Comment
 
Absolutly not! This gives the police the excuse to pull over whomever, whenever they want. In Ohio, the police, Coast Guard, DNR, ect. Can do random boat checks. This is a constant annoyance and is enough for people to sell their boats. It hurts our economy, which relies heavily on watercraft and sport, and is just overall terrible. Think about if this happens with cars! Scary!
 
 mpdelahunt  31 Oct 2012 14:15
 Add a Comment
 
 
What keep said and there is no probable cause.
 
 Specter87  24 Oct 2008 01:33
 Add a Comment
 
 
No because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Random breath tests would assume guilt.
 
 keepmindok  14 Sep 2008 11:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
The police give random breath tests to whomever they choose, and it's not the white guy driving the new Lexus. They can cite all sorts of traffic infractions you've never heard of;. "Following the fog line too closely" is my current favorite. That means driving steadily next to the white line on the side of the road.

Interesting fact: Alcohol check points are legal, but drug check points are not. However, it is legal to post signs that say "Drug Check Point Ahead." Then the police get the folks that turn around or toss items out of their car.
 
 Lynn  17 Aug 2008 16:54
 Add a Comment
 
 
It would annoy people and if someone is drunk enough to be dangerous you can tell from their driving anyway.

Also, that might violate the 4th amendment.
 
 ur_wrong  27 May 2008 18:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
I'm against it. I think people should be tested only if there is reason to suspect that they have been driving while drunk. For example, if an accident has occurred or police officers see a car swaying around on the road. It's just too great an infringement into personal liberty to have the police stopping and examining people at random, whether they are looking for signs of drunkenness or anything else.
 
 Hidell  08 Feb 2008 23:21
 1 Comment
 
 I agree. Confiscating people's bodily output for no valid reason is just rude. And the check-points cause traffic problems.
by  Lynn
 17 Aug 2008 16:45
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
Hondas Are Better Than Fords.
We Should Install New Speed Cameras?
Bicyclists Need To Obey The Laws Of The Road
The Driving Age Should Be Changed From 16.
Interstate Speed Limit 55 Trucks/70 Cars Is Unfair And Unsafe
Should Everybody In The Car Be Held Responsible For Drunk Driving?
Cars Are Kool
People Should Be Allowed To Drive Over The Age Of 89
The Real Deathnote Is Acting As A Troll
People Who Cut You Off Then Slow And Turn In Front Of You, And Those Who Have No Regard For Other Drivers......
New Debates
CPAC Scrambles To Control Damage After Attendees Wave Russian Flags During Trump Speech
"Priebus Request To FBI Violated Norms, If Not Rules".
Mr. Trump Continues His Attacks On His Own Government’s Law Enforcement And Intelligence Agencies....
Fairies Don't Exist.
Abortion Procedures Are Messed-Up.
Wikileaks Is Morally "Wrong".
Bitcoin Is The Future Of Money.
Through A Modern Perspective Satan Isn't That Bad.
It's Okay To Wear Sneakers Without Socks.
McCain: Trump’s Attacks On Press Are 'how Dictators Get Started'.