Why or why not?
I dunno, what do YOU think?
Can Breathalyzers distinguish between human breath and other sources of air, from, for example, a small balloon or a well-practiced armpit fart?
Not a bad idea I suppose. How expensive are they? Maybe the government can subsidize the extra costs…
If you’re talking about those things that lock the car if the driver is drunk, well, when a judge orders that, it’s the drunk driver who pays for it.
So are we now proposing that even people who never drink have to pay for it, too? Good luck with that.
An inexpensive, unobtrusive passive detector would be okay. A lot of people would fight it like crazy but a lot of other people might appreciate their car reminding them they had one too many margaritas at the after work party.
Ridiculous nanny-state bullshit. Completely unwarranted government intrusion into private life. In general, field sobriety testing requires some showing of probable cause, which this idiocy would not.
:rolleyes: Of course it wouldn’t, because no one was suggesting it should count as a search in order to arrest someone and change them for a crime.
**If **it would just require one puff to start the car (and not make you do it periodically while driving like the court-ordered ones do), and **if **it was magic and never could fail and make you not be able to drive your car even though you weren’t drunk, and **if **it was very inexpensive, then why not, I guess. It would also have to be set at the legal limit and not at zero like the court-ordered ones are.
What an awful idea. I haven’t been drunk in decades and haven’t ever driven when too drunk. Why should I have to pay for and deal with that shit?
Yeah, I think that part is going to be a problem. It’s my understanding that the (relatively) cheap interlock breathalyzers aren’t particularly accurate because they don’t have to be. The ones the cops use are more expensive and have to be periodically calibrated because they need to be accurate to a 100th of a BAC%, although even then they don’t always agree with what a blood draw test would say. I’m not sure an interlock that would allow you to drive after doing ANY drinking would be practical, although I’m sure that would suit the likes of MADD just fine.
No, my cars do not need yet another reason to think they don’t have to start. (I blame their onboard computers. In the old days cars started when you hotwired them and no back talk.)
Hey, I have one that flips out if you try to unlock it with the key and not the remote thingie. That is so fun in the early hours of the morning, and sometimes I have to drive it for blocks with the horn going off before it gives up. They should not add more stuff until they get everything else working reliably.
If you live in France, it’s already compulsory.
That’s not the same thing, though. You just have to carry a cheap disposable breathalyzer kit along with your safety triangle, first aid kit and visi-vest-- you don’t need one of the interlocks that makes it so your car won’t start.
Yeah the ones that can start beeping at you on the freeway are actually pretty dangerous. Interlocks that require this have actually caused accidents. I don’t want to have to worry about that while going 65 in morning rush.
Well, it would create jobs. For people skilled in disabling electronic devices.
Also, epidemics of mouth-borne diseases among mechanics and valet parking attendants.
Offhand, I’d say because it reduces your chance of being killed by a drunk driver. But, yeah, in reality, this is a bad idea because of the reasons that Blackberry brings up.
And I have no idea what rachellelogram is talking about: there are interlocks that stop moving cars if you don’t blow into them? That is a terrible idea.
Doesn’t say if it stops the car but it seems you have to take the test while driving.
As someone who remembers rebuilding carburetors, I have to say this is a very rose-tinted view of the past.