re: The Infrastructure Bill Requires New Cars To Come With Drunk Driving Detection Technology.

So me and my wife are home. Having some wine with dinner.

My child decides to take a dive down the stairs.

Now I have to call an ambulance because we can't start our vehicles?

Dumb

If the technology is there and it works then it really does make sense to put into cars

Buy stock in
Tesla (driverless) and
Uber

quote:

---

TDsngumbo

---

quote:

---

 I see no problem with this 

---

The liberal voter, folks.

Police unions will hate this.

quote:

---

why not also add in speed controls to the gps and mileage tax tracker? a lot of deaths involve speeds over the limit. could also probably disable vehicles when seatbelts arent fastened. you could also make it to where the car makes the phone die if texting while driving. hell why not just ball gag drivers since any distraction is dangerous? frick man i dont understand why the government even allows people to drive in the first place too many possible things could cost lives.

---

We should all just use public transportation and walk everywhere.

quote:

---

I will now be forced to blow every time

---

No...that's not how the tech will work.

Touch System:
This technology measures blood alcohol levels under the skin’s surface by shining an infrared-light through the fingertip of the driver. It will be integrated into current vehicle controls, such as the start button or steering wheel, and take multiple, accurate readings.

Breath System:
This system measures alcohol as a driver breathes normally, when in the driver's seat. It will be designed to take instantaneous readings as the driver breathes normally and to accurately and reliably distinguish between the driver’s breath and that of any passengers.

Walt is so progressive he’s had one of these in his car for years

There's another MADD infused scientific slight of hand that gets slid into this. One of the major reasons the limit is set at 0.08% (vs. say, 0.1% or 0.12%) is to create the psychological impact of "X driver crashed, killing 2, was driving with a BAC OVER TWICE the legal limit" type headlines.

I mean that quite literally, the BAC limit was dropped from 0.10/0.12 to 0.08, with the main argument that it will lower the number of drivers driving at 0.16%+ (There wasn't a flock of drivers out there crashing with measured BAC's of 0.083%).

This isn't necessarily a problem, so long as the enforcement mechanism is a police officer stopping a driver on probable cause and confirming that probable cause via testing.

However, if the idea is that every vehicle in America won't start if the driver has a BAC of 0.08% (+/- the accuracy of the machine) that's not even close to the intent of what the pseudo-scientific limit was ever even based on. This has the impact of de-facto criminalizing people who aren't all presenting all that much risk to society (meanwhile, your town "I'll drive when I want to" drunk is paying to bypass that system with any of the 1000+ ways there is to do it).

It's a similar idea as speeding. The speed limit on any given street isn't 55MPH because 56MPH is reckless on a scientific level. It's set there to present the vision that driving 77MPH on that same stretch of road as OBVIOUSLY reckless. As a result, people get pissed when a camera sends tickets to everyone +4 MPH over on that stretch of road (regardless of actual safety impact).

quote:

---

Most people don’t realize that you’re over the limit after 2 or so drinks

---

It's about 4 drinks for most people I believe