People often think government wastes money on bad programs. But what about wasting money on a program that sounds like a good thing?
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article about an NHTSA project to put alcohol detectors in cars, After the party, a car that takes away your keys.
The article has this juicy tidbit:
“Enthusiasm for the potential of alcohol-detection technology is reflected in a proposed federal transportation bill. In it is a measure that would give the NHTSA’s alcohol-detector program $24 million over two years—a sum that could allow the agency by 2013 to equip a fleet of 100 or more cars with prototypes of two types of alcohol detectors. One would measure the alcohol in the driver’s breath. The other would use touch technology to take a reading from the driver’s skin, likely the fingertip used to activate a starter button.”
$24 million to equip 100 cars? That’s $240,000 per car! And this is the proposal. As if government ever delivers anything on budget. For more on this waste of taxpayer money, see the DADSS website. If you read carefully, you’ll realize they’re nowhere close to putting this stuff in the field. See this February 12 DADSS pdf release, for example.
This is just a really bad idea all the way around. Not necessary, easy to circumvent, expensive and a violation of our freedom. I can’t believe our country is even considering this for anyone other than a seriously habitual offender.
Some company will lobby the government for a grant to start building these lemons and then make a big contribution to the legislator who sponsors it.
You and the others who commented favorably on your criticism of research efforts to eliminate drunk driving are wrong. To oppose research to eliminate drunk driving is declaring support for drunk driving as an acceptable social behavior. Do you really support drunk driving? I should hope you are not so callous and indifferent.
Drunk driving claims about 10,000 lives annually, many are innocent victim of the most common violent crime in the US.
Your objective as an elected leader ought to be improvement in US public health. Elimination of drunk driving can save more lives lost accidentally than any other possible public health initiative.
Research at this stage shows promise; the nest stage of research is application to a pilot fleet. The material expense in research phases is going to be non-zero. You incorrectly characterize the per vehicle cost as comparable to a new vehicle purchase; the cost per vehicle is related to materials and conversion to test and accumulate new intellectual work product. This is the type of value added government program all public spirited citizens should support.
You should talk to MADD and see if you don’t think eliminating drunk driving is a good idea. Look into the pained eyes of men and women who have lost family members to this violent crime and see if you can then support drunk driving as an acceptable social behavior.
If you think it is acceptable to continue to enable 10,000 fatal injuries annually, most of which are murders, continue to oppose this research. If you have any interest in improving public health in the US, support this research and eventual implementation.
” Do you really support drunk driving?”
Nice try Mr. Lange. This is not about whether drunk driving is a good thing. It’s about wasting money.
Note that Mr. Lange may make his living on this waste: http://m.exponent.com/robert_lange/