Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. In this case it would be asked of those from MADD, "Have you installed these devices yourselves?" I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them.<p>I was in the military when Congress banned smoking in much of the military and other federal buildings but exempted themselves.<p>Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now?<p>If it's a step I haven't already taken myself, I can't even conceive of mandating that everyone do it before I start, but that's just too alien a concept it seems.<p>In a similar bit of hypocrisy, I feel the same way about drinking underage and the number of people who are perfectly ok ramping up punishments for the same "crimes" they themselves committed -- it's just the timeline in a different direction now.
Majority of comments here are on the headline and clearly did not read the article:<p>- It doesnt use breathalyzers, it uses safety systems similar as those for cruise control.<p>- It would be installed at the factory by manufacturers.<p>- It would be mandated by 2026, no different than how other basic vehicle safety equipment has been mandated for vehicles over time: seatbelts, airbags, reverse cams, third brake light, and so on.
And I am sure these devices will soon be connected to a network.<p>Soon if it breaks "you tried to disable it, that's a crime." If you potentially say something someone powerful doesn't like or your social credit score drops low enough "Sorry your driving privileges have been revoked."<p>I know it sounds good on the surface but this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned.<p>EDIT: Better yet since it is for "saving lives" and "safety" let's just ban alcohol all together that way we completely eliminate the risk of drunk driving altogether.
>"“We need technology to stop the nightmare on our roads,” Ms. Otte said."<p>I <i>think</i> the proper term for this is pearl-clutching, but in any event I absolutely <i>hate</i> when activists use wanton hyperbole. Yes, drunk drivers cause casualties, but is it <i>really</i> such a nightmare that requires integrating breathalyzers in every new car? I'd venture the majority of Americans would say no.<p>Additionally, I've become so disillusioned with American Democracy that I'm no longer proud of our style of government. The fact that Congress can pass such a wide-ranging law on the narrowest of majorities and each little politician can jam special interest provisions in makes me so angry. Congress has the power to operate in whatever little silly way it wants and this leads to such weird parliamentary chicanery.
How would a "passive monitoring" device differentiate impaired driving from simple bad driving? If it can't, does this law simply mandate a certain quality of driving? Potentially not a bad idea.<p>Extending half-jokingly, if we can adequately, uniformly, and proactively enforce a certain quality of driving... would that ultimately make drunk driving ok, as long as it's good enough?
This is the same form of false banner under which apple is deciding your photos and your phone are no longer your private property. The ultimate goal is centralized monitoring, surveillance, and control. They are barely trying to disguise it anymore.
How in the world is a safety device supposed to detect if I'm inebriated? The article says it stops short of recommending breathalyzers be installed, but I don't see another way of doing so.<p>How does this work when, say, we have a global pandemic and everyone starts slathering themselves with alcohol disinfectant as soon as they get in their cars?<p>This is such a bad, stupid idea.
They could solve a lot of drunk driving by having real mass transit in America. Cars kill more kids in America than anything else:<p><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%20were%20the,responsible%20for%2015%25%20of%20deaths" rel="nofollow">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=...</a><p>I doubt these deaths are all drunk driving incidents.<p>I wish, instead of trying to add regulation and technology to the problem, our government would look at the actual problem.
Nostalgia: "Kids, when I was your age YouTube didn't even exist, and you could start your car without first blowing into the breathalyzer tube."
The glass 1/10th full side of this is that OEMs might figure out how to make the systems not suck and drive all those predatory breathalyzer companies out of business.
Show me some real systems and their efficacy before we even talk about how massive of an overstep these 'tools must rat out their owners' proposals are.