I'm not sure how I feel about this. It could save lives but it would be an additional cost that would affect most drivers who don't drink and drive. Also, what happens if the device malfunctions and prevents you from driving your car?
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/09/20/blood-alcohol-monitoring-requirement-ntsb-nhtsa/
I would hope that there will be better technology than what the current systems use, if they require these things in new vehicles. I’ve worked on several cars that had court mandated breathalyzers installed, and they seem to malfunction often.
shareOkay, so if we’re going to monitor drivers who are impaired from substances, why aren’t we going to monitor drivers who are impaired from being on their fucking phones? Four years ago, a University of Oregon study found that driving while on a cell phone impaired driver performance as much as driving while intoxicated. I completely believe this. But we as a society are not chasing this down. And please don’t give me the “hands free phone” argument. When the driver is distracted, the driver is distracted, doesn’t matter if it’s a phone call or a blowjob. An automobile IS A DEADLY WEAPON. People die because we pretend that it is not.
shareMy initial reaction is the law involves an unconstitutional search without probable cause. Someone will certainly challenge it on these grounds. The government cannot skirt the 4th Amendment by forcing private parties like auto manufacturers to conduct searches that would be unlawful if performed by the government
shareDriving isn't a right, it is a privilege. The roads are a shared resource, driving recklessly/impaired upon them risks the safety of others. For that reason, the public has a reasonable interest in ensuring operators on public roads are fit to drive, according to established laws.
shareThe right in question is to be secure in your person from unreasonable government searches and seizures. Here, the government - having zero reason to even believe a driver has had a drink - would compel him to prove it by passing a breath test to have access to his own property each and every time he took the driver’s seat. The would occur whether he was a Morman who never had alcohol in his life, whether it was Monday afternoon at 1 p.m., or whether the trip involved a private road on his own property. Millions of drivers over millions of trips, day after day, year after year having to preemptively prove their innocence before their government will let them use their own vehicle despite having no reason to believe they’d done anything wrong. Many Americans are going to have a problem with this
shareYes, people are going to have a different assessment of the wisdom of this. But it's not IMO a fundamental rights issue, it is a test on the reasonableness/feasibility of such an imposition, having an clearly beneficial intent/effect.'
No one would reasonably argue against preventing drunk drivers from operating on the public roads. We differ perhaps on what constitutes reasonable prevention measures.
Given the feasibility/reliability of the instrumentation, I don't consider blowing into a tube a great imposition. ymmv.