Why Doesn't Every Car Come With A Breathalyzer?

Since it's being brought up, I personally don't think those cars will ever be in mass production. Think of the kagillions of dollars the government would lose. I'm assuming all these cars would be programmed to follow the rules, and all drive relatively the same, so even speeding tickets would be obsolete.

It's essentially the same reason why this breathalyzer suggestion will never be implemented. It's all about the dollars.

The less cops giving out tickets, the more that can be used for stopping real crime.
 
Because then the gov can't profit off drunk driving. I've thought the same thing in the past.
 
Come to think of it date rape and drunk driving have a lot in common why dont we just ban the booze ? How far are you willing to go for some safety my man ?

are you a feminist? so everyone who drinks on a date is a rapist?
because everyone who drives drunk is a drunk driver and face serious consequences when caught.
 
No im not a feminist and I never said everyone who drinks is rapist. I dont want to ban booze put up cameras or put breathalyzers in cars. If you read my other posts in here my position is pretty clear.
 
Probation costs thousands of dollars, in addition to fines, the price they make you pay to have the equipment installed, drug testing, court fees, all that.

If you actually tried to prevent DUI/DWI, police budgets around the nation would fall rapidly.
 
Why not just implement zero tolerance policy and draconian punishments across the board? That way you'd only be affecting the actual guilty parties. Make the first dui a year in the clink, the 2nd 3 years and a lifetime suspension of your license. He'll you could expand this approach to any moving violation.......wanna speed ? Less than 20 but more than 10 mph over the limit and you lose your liscence for 30 days and pay a meaningful fine , say $800 or so. 20 or more over and you lose your liscence for 1 year and are fined $100 for every mph you've exceeded the limited by. 3rd strike and you'd have to start looking at lifetime revocation and maybe jail time.

Again , By taking the above approach you're also eliminating the de facto tax that equipping all cars....even the non drinkers cars with. Seems more " fair".

Think of the seismic shift you'd have in the culture around driving. Would it be huuuuuuge pain in the ass initially? Sure
Would plenty of otherwise good people get balled up in the process? You bet , but you gotta think of the lives you'd save. Surely all the frightened people among us that place safety above liberty could get behind it. Would you be amenable to living under policy like this TS?

Remember, ANYTHING is worth it , If it saves just one life!
 
The less cops giving out tickets, the more that can be used for stopping real crime.
Yeah the government cares more about profit than crime prevention as long as things are stable.
 
Couple reasons

1) Its extremely inefficient. There are over 250 million cars in the US. It costs about 100 dollars to install them and the units themselves cost a couple hundred bucks on the low side. You're talking about a very significant sum of money. Not to mention, the costs of the devices will rise precipitously once there's an instant demand for 250 million of them.

2) bypassing it. Money will undoubtedly be made by simply setting up a black market economy in bypassing the device and it'll be extremely difficult to stop.

These are a couple of economic reasons. This is ignored the philosophical ones. Many will argue that it's intrusive, that the standard for what constitutes someone being physically impaired due to drinking is different depending upon the individual. Also, you're inherently punishing the vast majority due to the irresponsible whoms of the minority. What kind of door does that open? Isn't this more control over individuals in a country where constant surveillance is already a very real threat to our personal sovereignty?

Just some food for thought
 
I'm gonna make millions being a sober breath technician if this happens .
 
Couple reasons

1) Its extremely inefficient. There are over 250 million cars in the US. It costs about 100 dollars to install them and the units themselves cost a couple hundred bucks on the low side. You're talking about a very significant sum of money. Not to mention, the costs of the devices will rise precipitously once there's an instant demand for 250 million of them.

2) bypassing it. Money will undoubtedly be made by simply setting up a black market economy in bypassing the device and it'll be extremely difficult to stop.

These are a couple of economic reasons. This is ignored the philosophical ones. Many will argue that it's intrusive, that the standard for what constitutes someone being physically impaired due to drinking is different depending upon the individual. Also, you're inherently punishing the vast majority due to the irresponsible whoms of the minority. What kind of door does that open? Isn't this more control over individuals in a country where constant surveillance is already a very real threat to our personal sovereignty?

Just some food for thought

Sure, but you could make those same arguments for pretty much any government implemented safety device ever conceived.
 
It's a great idea, just think of the economic possibilities. Stand out side your local bar with a sign "will blow for $$$"

Make money two ways.
 
It's a great idea, just think of the economic possibilities. Stand out side your local bar with a sign "will blow for $$$"

Make money two ways.

Nothing is stopping you from doing this now man.
 
Why don't we put cameras in your house, and make you wear a tracking braclet...just in case.
 
Why don't we put cameras in your house, and make you wear a tracking braclet...just in case.

Why don't you pretend like this would be some outrageous, draconian dictatorship rule, instead of just admitting that you're a drunk driver, and you don't like this proposition.
 
This is the type of idea high school stoners come up with while watching The Simpsons.

Why would stoners want more laws when their drug of choice is already illegal? Stoners are against such prohibition...
 
They cost too much. Not to mention it's not really fair to responsible people who don't drive drunk to have to blow start their car.
 
Also in cold weather it takes long time for the breathalyzer to warm up. It's annoying.
 
Sure, but you could make those same arguments for pretty much any government implemented safety device ever conceived.

It's not even comparable with the vast majority of safety devices.

Look at seatbelts. Before seatbelts were required, the vast majority of cars already had them installed. They were common place and low cost. Breathalyzers are neither.

But even then, while seatbelts are federally required to be in cars, their is no federal law mandating their use.
 
Back
Top