So, a very small percentage of the population drinks and drives but you want every single car buyer to pay extra? Your story is very misleading because the figures are based on every single car having the system but then later quotes about it being a voluntary purchase. Name a drinker that’s going to volunteer for that expense! You know it’s a scam to initially make it voluntary but eventually become a requirement, thus putting extra expense on the vast majority of the population who never even drink. Meanwhile, drinkers will do what they currently do and have somebody else trick the system.
I’m putting off buying a new vehicle until this technology becomes available, and I’ll gladly pay whatever it costs. Why? Because in 2009, a lying trooper ruined my life by claiming I was “impaired”. Knowing I wasn’t impaired by anything other than Colorado blowing snow and slippery road conditions, he nevertheless chose to lie so he could make his $90, 000 annual income from his grant-funded overtime. I blew triple zero, and the incentivized judge wouldn’t allow it in as exculpatory evidence.
My nightmare ordeal taught me that no one is immune to getting charged with DUI, and I applaud this new technology. For me, knowing that I’ll be safe from lying troopers is worth any price. I do hope it’ll be cheaper than the $15,000 I spent on the attorney in 2009.
Another thing, it’s just like those black boxes. Initially they were to gather data purely for car manufacturers for testing and design purposes. Now they’re used against drivers involved in serious accidents. We all end up paying for an expensive device that can only be used against us in court. I can just imagine the alcohol device problems when they start reading wrong and disabling cars. Are the insurance companies going to cover repairs and rental cars due to problems with devices they want installed? Are they going to cover the extra cost at the time of purchase? Heck no, but they’ll sure find a way to raise rates over them.
I don’t know that much about those black boxes but I guess they could work in favor of a driver involved in a serious accident as well as against, couldn’t they?
In our country people are innocent until proven guilty. Yet you want everyone to pay for a device that assumes they are guilty? When most Americans have never driven drunk? This is just plain evil
With the leaps we have taken in self driving cars i think that should be our goal. Once all cars on the road drive themselves drunk driving will be a thing of the past.
This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever heard to mandate yet another invasive and expensive “safety feature”. Using this moronic logic, how about we just outlaw getting out of bed in the morning? Think of the savings and societal benefit in doing that! The lives that would be saved!
Stupid.
I had an OEM client whose regional sales manager was given a demo.
All was great until the court madated that he install an interlock, following another DUI.
The icing on the cake was when he had to use his demo for a real sales demonstration with a potential buyer. Imagine the testing drivers’ surprise when he found the apparatus.
So, a very small percentage of the population drinks and drives but you want every single car buyer to pay extra? Your story is very misleading because the figures are based on every single car having the system but then later quotes about it being a voluntary purchase. Name a drinker that’s going to volunteer for that expense! You know it’s a scam to initially make it voluntary but eventually become a requirement, thus putting extra expense on the vast majority of the population who never even drink. Meanwhile, drinkers will do what they currently do and have somebody else trick the system.
I’m putting off buying a new vehicle until this technology becomes available, and I’ll gladly pay whatever it costs. Why? Because in 2009, a lying trooper ruined my life by claiming I was “impaired”. Knowing I wasn’t impaired by anything other than Colorado blowing snow and slippery road conditions, he nevertheless chose to lie so he could make his $90, 000 annual income from his grant-funded overtime. I blew triple zero, and the incentivized judge wouldn’t allow it in as exculpatory evidence.
My nightmare ordeal taught me that no one is immune to getting charged with DUI, and I applaud this new technology. For me, knowing that I’ll be safe from lying troopers is worth any price. I do hope it’ll be cheaper than the $15,000 I spent on the attorney in 2009.
Another thing, it’s just like those black boxes. Initially they were to gather data purely for car manufacturers for testing and design purposes. Now they’re used against drivers involved in serious accidents. We all end up paying for an expensive device that can only be used against us in court. I can just imagine the alcohol device problems when they start reading wrong and disabling cars. Are the insurance companies going to cover repairs and rental cars due to problems with devices they want installed? Are they going to cover the extra cost at the time of purchase? Heck no, but they’ll sure find a way to raise rates over them.
I don’t know that much about those black boxes but I guess they could work in favor of a driver involved in a serious accident as well as against, couldn’t they?
In our country people are innocent until proven guilty. Yet you want everyone to pay for a device that assumes they are guilty? When most Americans have never driven drunk? This is just plain evil
With the leaps we have taken in self driving cars i think that should be our goal. Once all cars on the road drive themselves drunk driving will be a thing of the past.
I knew a guy who had one of these, he just paid some kid walking by $5 to breath into it so he could leave the bar, lol
This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever heard to mandate yet another invasive and expensive “safety feature”. Using this moronic logic, how about we just outlaw getting out of bed in the morning? Think of the savings and societal benefit in doing that! The lives that would be saved!
Stupid.
“We” sure are doing a great job saving ourselves from each other, are we not?
I had an OEM client whose regional sales manager was given a demo.
All was great until the court madated that he install an interlock, following another DUI.
The icing on the cake was when he had to use his demo for a real sales demonstration with a potential buyer. Imagine the testing drivers’ surprise when he found the apparatus.
All hail the new regional sales manager…