There's a stipulation just above that portion of the bill where the Secretary of Transportation can determine that it is not possible to 'passively' determine if a driver is impaired and decline that rule so long as they issue a report to congress as to why.
And I trust Buttigieg to give the issue a solid looking over, but aren't breathalyzers pretty well established as a positive indicator of driver impairment?
Though requiring the driver to blow into a straw doesn't seem particularly "passive"--whatever that means.
That is less invasive than making you blow. But there will always be edge cases.
Imagine a medical condition that makes it look like you are impaired. Now, you have to go to the dealer with a doctor's note to get this system disabled. Or when you want to rent a car.
Or, if there is a case when driving impaired would be better then the alternative. You and a friend are camping in the woods out of cell range, you both have some beers then one of you trips and gets a deep cut on the leg. Now you have to wait a couple hours before he can drive you to where you can get cell signal, hope you don't bleed out.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
How long until general computing is given up due to hackers and piracy ala The right to read(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)?