Responsibility, Paternalism and Alcohol Interlocks

Abstract

Drink driving causes great suffering and material destruction. The alcohol interlock promises to eradicate this problem by technological design. Traditional counter-measures to drink driving such as policing and punishment and information campaigns have proven insufficient. Extensive policing is expensive and intrusive. Severe punishment is disproportionate to the risks created in most single cases. If the interlock becomes inexpensive and convenient enough, and if there are no convincing moral objections to the device, it may prove the only feasible as well as the only justifiable solution to the problem of drink driving. A policy of universal alcohol interlocks, in all cars, has been proposed by several political parties in Sweden and is supported by the National Road Administration and the 2006 Alcohol Interlock Commission. This article assesses two possible moral objections to a policy of universal interlocks: 1) That it displaces the responsibility of individual drivers, and 2) that it constitutes a paternalistic interference with drivers. The first objection is found unconvincing, while the second has only limited bite and may be neutralized if paternalism is accepted for the sake of greater net liberty. Given the expected technological development, the proposed policy seems a commendable health promotion measure for the near future.

Design for the Value of Responsibility

“…In Sweden, according to a bill adopted by a previous government and parliament, alcohol interlocks should be made mandatory in all new cars from 2012 (Grill and Nihlén Fahlquist 2012). Although this bill has not been implemented, interlocks are now common in coaches and taxis as a result of decisions made by individual companies.…”

“…This is not uncontroversial, since driving has traditionally been associated with ideas of freedom of movement and autonomy, and to shift the balance and make it a societal concern may be considered undesirable. From a libertarian perspective, the alcohol interlock could be seen as reducing individual freedom and responsibility (Grill and Nihlén Fahlquist 2012;Ekelund 1999). On the other hand, most libertarians would agree that the government should protect the lives and health of individuals from the threat of other individuals.…”

“…Wetmore (2004), for example, discusses car design issues in relation to responsibility for safety. Some of our own work has also focused on how responsibility may be affected by technology and design (Grill and Nihlén Fahlquist 2012;Nihlén Fahlquist and Van de Poel 2012;Doorn and Van de Poel 2012;Nihlén Fahlquist in press). …”

Analysis of the Paternalistic Justification of an Agenda Setting Public Health Policy: The Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging

“…Discussions of autonomy and paternalism are at the forefront of contemporary public health ethics (Jennings, 2009;Thaler and Sunstein, 2009;Dawson and Verweij, 2010;Ménard, 2010;Thomas and Buckmaster, 2010;Blumenthal-Barby, 2012;Grill and Fahlquist, 2012;Skipper, 2012;Barton, 2013;Blumenthal-Barby et al, 2013;Conly, 2013a,b;Hakkarainen, 2013;Owens and Cribb, 2013;Resnik, 2014;Wardrope, 2015). As Dawson and Verweij (2010) notes, this discussion is clearly of relevance to the debate over plain packaging.…”

Automated cars meet human drivers: responsible human-robot coordination and the ethics of mixed traffic

“…If all human drivers use alcohol-interlocks, they would consistently be more fully alert and concentrated than if they sometimes also have the option of driving while under the influence of alcohol (Grill and Nihlén Fahlquist 2012). Still another option is equipping conventional cars with forward collision warning-technologies.…”