[0xbadcafebee]

We never pushed for it politically because it wouldn't change anything but it would piss people off. You can simply buckle the seatbelt with nobody in the seat, then sit down, and the requirement is defeated.

On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.

[skeeter2020]

>> We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.

Yes, because the idea that every single person should now start doing what historically only a reprehensible convicted drunk driver was required to do will go over so well.

[toast0]

> On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.

I don't drink often, and I have never and would never drink and drive, but please no. Mandatory breathalyzers for everyone is an immense expense and a huge inconvenience and I suspect would be easily bypassed by those who choose to drink and drive. And I don't want to live with the consequences of making it hard to bypass such a device, because it likely makes working on a vehicle nearly impossible.

[asveikau]

My understanding is that many people drive above the legal limit for DUIs and do not get caught. DUI prosecution is somewhat the story of selective enforcement.

What would piss people off is coming into contact with the fact that they're driving illegally. I think many drivers are unaware of being above legal limits and would probably be angry when confronted with it.

I guess playing devil's advocate... There's probably some odd scenario where driving above the limit for an emergency circumstance could be justifiable. So perhaps the car should not be disabled in this way.

[daedalus_j]

Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice.

Get caught in a DUI? You simply never. drive. again... Ever. No 2nd chance. Hurt or kill someone as a DUI? Mandatory minimum jail time.

The difference is that this encourages personal responsibility and has personal consequences, rather than attempting to police the entire population for the bad deeds of the few.

[throwaway0a5e]

> Or you could simply make it so that the threat of driving drunk was so high that people actually thought twice.

Every jackboot says this but in reality it does nothing because everyone thinks they're good and won't get caught.

[daedalus_j]

Well, then we just have to accept is as a cost of doing business and not try to stop it, because the same could be said about anything short of a full all-knowing surveillance state. People commit murder because they think they're good and won't get caught. Some don't. Better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent be convicted though. So we just have to decide how far down "convicted" really means, and if I need to ask the tech gods in the sky for permission to start my car every time I want to go somewhere I'm feeling rather convicted...

Personally I'd rather live in a world with consequences than live in the lowest-common-denominator big-brother world.

[throwaway0a5e]

Why does the DUI body count need to be so low that the only options for getting there running out society like 1984 or running it like ISIS?

[daedalus_j]

I don't think it does. So I think we actually honestly agree that the current situation is probably fine and that neither mandatory breathalyzers built into all cars nor mandatory loss of driving privileges are desirable outcomes. :-)

[trashtester]

> On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk. We already have them for people with DUIs, so we should make them mandatory for all cars.

People who frequently drive under the influence tend to have a strong habit. Those would just keep driving an old car if such a device is introduced in new cars.

For most other people, such a device would be seen as a very annoying.

For it to have the desired impact,it needs to be fitted in all old cars, and then we're adding a significant expense on top of the annoyance.

Now, MAYBE if the device can be used to reduce insurance fees, it might be doable, but only in countries without public healthcare.

[officeplant]

Had a friend dumb enough to drive drunk a few times and get multiple DUI's resulting in a breathalyzer in his hopped up WRX. I will never forget the pure frustration of him dealing with stalling out a manual car and having to grab the breathalyzer while also trying to get started again. I wish he would have had to deal with that for years instead of 6 months, but at least he cleaned up his act.

[drdec]

FYI, one of the recent giant bills that passed in the US requires automakers to implement passive systems which detect impaired drivers.

[ectopod]

The breathalyser is a lovely idea but couldn't it be defeated with a pair of bellows?

[rootusrootus]

> On the other hand, a mandatory breathalyzer for ignition would be useful to prevent a lone driver from driving drunk.

That would do nothing accept waste countless man hours of productivity, consume a great deal of money, and ensure that the next generation of politicians would be Libertarians.