Why doesn't the government require manufacturers to install breathalyzers in all new cars?
1 2018-05-14 by Dodge1992
Because they know it would kill the restaurant and nightlife business? It can't be cost prohibitive considering the safety requirements currently in place.
25 comments
1 Spooky2000 2018-05-14
It would also kill the auto industry. Not a fucking chance I would buy a new car with a breathalyzer in it. And I don't even drink.
1 frostnovazz 2018-05-14
I would never buy one either with a breathalyzer installed
1 scaredshtlessintx 2018-05-14
Agreed...screw that...I don’t drink, and I for sure will not blow a BE every time to start my car because other people are too fucking irresponsible and stupid.
1 stuwya 2018-05-14
I’m actually really curious as to why you wouldn’t be comfortable having one if you don’t drink. I’m a pretty frequent drinker and I never drink and drive but I see no issue with having one if it means less people would drink and drive so idk. What’s the fear in having one?
1 Spooky2000 2018-05-14
More government control over my life that I don't need. More stupid shit in my car that will brake at some point that I will have to fix. Mostly because you can't fix a problem by punishing people that have not caused the problem. Same as gun control. Taking guns away from safe and sane people will not stop crazy stupid people from shooting other people.
1 elcad 2018-05-14
Just one more thing to break and for me to pay to fix. "I can't come to work today, because the breathalyzer thinks it's been tampered with."
1 stuwya 2018-05-14
Ok this part makes a lot of sense. Also it would be so annoying to have to use every time. I think I understand and agree with the sentiment and idea of it but actually having it wouldn’t be something I wanted.
1 FUCKY0URSELF 2018-05-14
But not everyone is an irresponsible degenerate alcoholic who can’t resist getting behind the wheel after knocking back a few at the local watering hole though.
1 Hootietang 2018-05-14
My mom can’t drive sober as a judge sooo
1 russianbot01 2018-05-14
Not cost prohibitive? That would add thousands to the price of a new car (linking it to the starter etc). The ones they put in cars are not cheap. Just take an uber.
1 nullum_meam 2018-05-14
interesting i just looked up the costs...not nearly as bad as i thought...
limiting speed would cost even less, and save more lives...
1 Dodge1992 2018-05-14
Interesting thought.
1 2lab 2018-05-14
The 5th.
1 Tha_Dude_Abidez 2018-05-14
Jesus, you have to blow those things every 45 minutes, even while driving. This would be a horrible idea.
1 kingcubfan 2018-05-14
Would not be hard to get someone to blow into it for you. It would also have to contain a dna reader too. Coming soon.....
1 pby1000 2018-05-14
Don't worry! They planned on having everyone use self-driving cars. Of course, the users would not actually own the car. They would have to lease it from the bank or pay for a ride.
This is one of the goal's of the New World Order.
Go ahead. Install it. I will just disarm it.
On second thought, why would anyone every buy a newer car? The older ones are much easier to work on.
1 yellowsnow2 2018-05-14
This ^
I seem to remember Obama giving hundreds of millions of tax payer money towards speeding up self driving vehicles.
1 pby1000 2018-05-14
They intended to do the same with houses. There would be no more home ownership. Everyone would rent from the banks.
1 yellowsnow2 2018-05-14
I remember there was a big controversy about john deere tractors along the same lines also. Something about you couldn't work on your own tractor and that raising the question of if it was even their property.
1 pby1000 2018-05-14
Yes, you are right. People in Ukraine hacked the system, which is pretty funny.
1 JackRabb1tSl1m 2018-05-14
Not sure if OP intended but there are a lot of parallels between this argument and the gun debate
1 Kendle_C 2018-05-14
Why? Because Fuck YOU!
1 FartfullyYours 2018-05-14
Because it would stop drunk driving.
1 mad_HaTTer014 2018-05-14
It would hurt sales of new vehicles and help sales of used vehicles. Manufacturers would lobby against it to protect their interest in demand for new vehicles.
1 schwam_91 2018-05-14
It's just a stupid idea... It is not anyone's responsibility to make sure you do not ingest things at certain times and then drive.