If All Car manufacturers wants to install Alcohol Breathalizer in vehicles as standard options

[Qianglong]

Lets say all the car manufacturers are contemplating on installing breathalizer in all new vehicles, which can measure your sobriety solely by your exhale and will imobilize the car if the threshold limit is dectected.

Will you support this notion even if it adds lets say $100~200 more to a new vehicle purchase?

 

[Pepsi90919]

yeah. i guess.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Nope. I dont want anything extra in my car that could malfunction and prevent me from driving. Cars are already packed full of enough junk.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Um, no.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Not at all!!! I do not drink and drive, and I sure as hell do not want to have to breathe into an ugly looking cone everything I want to start my vehicle. And, what is to stop someone from blowing a compressor or pump into it.

 

[daniel1113]

Hell no. Why should I (and millions of other Americans) have to pay for a feature that can be simply added after market for the relatively small number of offenders?

 

[foghorn67]

No. A ton of reasons.

 

[Fingolfin269]

It's good in a way but I don't need something as trivial as that to break and keep me from driving.

 

[Ruptga]

I would if it's only enabled by a court order (ie I get busted for DUI and then have to use the thing to drive in my car). But for something that's always installed and always enabled, no, nobody would ever go for that. But I have a feeling you already knew that, which is exactly why you phrased the question in the manner you did. Woot for FUD mongering :disgust:

 

[chrisms]

No. Please leave America ASAP, thanks.

 

[Lonyo]

Nope, because I am NEVER going to drink and drive.

 

[dxkj]

no

wsate of money when it can be bipassed so easily... and what happens when it goes on the fritz, just another thing to rbeak my car

 

[Number1]

:thumbsdown:

 

[aplefka]

Unless it could be 100% correct and never malfunction then nope. Plus how would you account for different drivers of different ages? Say a 16 year old dipshit gets in and has had some to drink but isn't at the legal limit for someone of drinking age. How would the car know that he's not even legally allowed to drink and therefore immobilize?

 

[Christobevii3]

I'd fart into it

 

[homercles337]

No. BAC does not correlate well with impairment. Not to mention that one can blow off the charts for not waiting long enough after having a drink, rinsing with mouth wash, or whatever.

 

[skywhr]

Originally posted by: Christobevii3
I'd fart into it

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Nope. I dont want anything extra in my car that could malfunction and prevent me from driving. Cars are already packed full of enough junk.

if you would remove yourself as the driver, you'd probably find it a much more manageable situation.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
No. A ton of reasons.

 

[Leros]

If the car could magically tell if I was drunk without me having to do anything, then sure. If it requires me to do extra work, like breath into a tube, then no way.

 

[BlancoNino]

Hell no!

If this happened, nobody would buy new cars...only old ones that didn't have it. Also, what if there was an emergency and you had to drive after you've had a few drinks to save somebody's life? What if it malfunctions? I shouldn't need to go on. This is a horrible idea.

 

[Pepsi90919]

TACOS

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: aplefka
Unless it could be 100% correct and never malfunction then nope. Plus how would you account for different drivers of different ages? Say a 16 year old dipshit gets in and has had some to drink but isn't at the legal limit for someone of drinking age. How would the car know that he's not even legally allowed to drink and therefore immobilize?

Laws aside, is a 16 year old with one beer any worse of a driver than a 21 year old with one beer. Probably, but enough to warrant him not driving? Maybe not.

I don't think they would need to take age into account.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: aplefka
Unless it could be 100% correct and never malfunction then nope. Plus how would you account for different drivers of different ages? Say a 16 year old dipshit gets in and has had some to drink but isn't at the legal limit for someone of drinking age. How would the car know that he's not even legally allowed to drink and therefore immobilize?

Parental control access code? If the kid has his own car or is the only user of a specific car, then a minors lock would be activated.

I do not want these in cars but that is just one solution to your problem.

 

[Aftermath]

I wouldn't support it.

I'm already tired enough of dealing with little things like CD keys, copy protection, software activation, etc. In other words, jumping through hoops to prove that I'm not doing something wrong, while anybody who really wants to simply bypasses those protection systems anyway.

I assume it would work the same way in the car. I might never drink and drive, or rarely even drink, but I'll still get to have an extra hoop in my car that I need to jump through to get where I'm going, while anybody who does drink and drive can probably bypass the system with ease and continue to endanger lives.

It would just add to the cost and complexity of the vehicle, and annoy the vast majority of the people on the road who never drink and drive and just want to get where they're going.