Should all cars have breathalyzers built-in?
 

For everybody? Apparently "Americans strongly support this":

https://komonews.com/news/nation-wor...a-survey-finds

From my understanding, public transport in America tends to be really bad or non-existent in many cities and the walkways tend to be underdeveloped, essentially forcing people to drive even in situations when it's considered the worst option in other countries. In turn that's the main culprit behind why people would be willing to get behind the wheel while drunk, instead of just taking the bus home. From TV shows I know of "designated drivers", essentially someone comes with the group drinking and stays sober so that they can get home later, something unheard of here in Stockholm as everyone just hops on the metro and/or the bus.

Is that it? Am I correct about what the primary reason for drunk driving is in the US?

Far less excuse now there’s Uber etc

Without having done any research on it, what harm would it do? When it comes to alcohol and driving, people easily miscalculate what they are still able to do as far as reaction speed etc is concerned. If there is a device that just goes „Nope, you’re over the limit, this car won‘t start.“, that‘s a good thing.

It’s hard to argue against but at the same time it feels like such an invasive restriction, especially if you don’t even drink.

But if I knew someone killed by a drunk driver it admittedly might shift
My perspective idk.

I used to be a heavy party drinker till my early 30s. I never drove when I was really wasted but occasionally drove after having drunk three or four beers. That nothing happened was sheer luck.

Today, I completely stopped drinking but if I had to use a breathalyzer every time I wanted to go somewhere, I‘d be fine with it.

I dunno, I think a more appropriate question should be:

"Is it really a good idea to legally allow 16 year old kids to drive in the US?"

I think it'd be outrageous. As long as you're practicing good defensive driving and not assuming everyone is following the rules of the road like you and the lights (i.e., just because the light is green for you at the 4 way stop don't assume someone might not be blowing through the intersection a moment later to T bone you) and all you'll be fine.

Oh hell, I used to be able to drink a pint of vodka and get in my car and drive from one end of the state to the other. Boy, I'd never drive straighter than those times. I think where drunk people get into trouble is when they try to multitask in the car... fiddling with the radio or cell phone.

But those days are long behind and I would never do that now.

As long as they go through a proper traffic safety course and are carefully vetted by the instructor, sure. I was driving at 16. Here in WA I believe just a year or two after I graduated is when they started "Graduated Licensing." Meaning, over the course of being 16 and then 17 leading into 18 your "road curfew" would shrink. As in, at 16 you could only be on the road until 8 PM. Then 17 by 10 PM. Something like that. They probably still have that.

OP just wants to drive drunk and doesn't want "the evil government when to tell him when he can drive, I'm only a little buzzed". Go get a cab you alcoholic bum, you will kill an innocent person and then act like you didn't know better.
Why not? Everyone in my school drove at 16 and it was all good. It's not like most people are driving reckless and those that are will do so even if they have to wait to be 18. It's not like you only drive crazy if you're younger. How else was I supposed to get to school? Go on dates? go on roadtrips? Driving gives you freedom, especially for those who don't live in one of the major cities, there's no way to get around besides having a car.

16 year olds being legally allowed to drive cars and 18-20 year olds not being legally allowed to buy and consume alcohol is just weird.

At least be coherent and make both things legal at the same time.

18 is when people reach adulthood. If you're allowed to vote and can go to prison then you should be allowed to drink alcohol and drive a car.

How can a 16 year old kid be properly trialed if he causes a bad traffic accident? Does the legal responsibility fall on his/her parents?

Oh, I agree with this sentiment almost entirely. 18 is "adult," meaning you can get drafted and fight and die in a war and can vote? Then you should be able to buy cigarettes and booze, for sure. Without question.

I think the "16 to drive" thing is a bit grandfathered from the days of when there was gun clubs in high schools and kids owning and shooting them wasn't looked at as any sort of big deal. But there's also the agricultural side of things. If you're in a rural or farming community, you might need to send Little Billy to the market to get this or that in the middle of the day, or whatever.

Financially? Sure. Which is why the parents can refuse to let their son or daughter drive until they're 18, if they really want to do that.

Oh that's interesting. So they can drive but have a few restrictions still. Not "full freedom" yet?

Yeah I'd not allow my hypothetical kid to drive a car until he/she was 18 either. You want a car? Become an adult first. Then you'll be 100% responsible for whatever you do on the road with your car.

And doesn't that kinda teach kids bad habits? as in getting a few parking or speeding fines when they're 16-17 which daddy will pay and then one day they're adults and do that again and then reality hits them in the face with "you're no longer a kid. YOU PAY!"?

As for the legal issues... what if a 16 year old kid kills someone on the road? Since they're still kids they don't go to adult prisons. Do they just go to a juvenile prison or something, even if they commit a hit and run crime on the road or something?

In High School still riding the bus as a junior or senior meant you were a huge loser. You either drove or had a friend that drove you to school.

This is the thing, laws exist because something is an issue that needs to be resolved. In this scenario while it may happen from time to time, it doesn't happen frequently enough that the people ask their officials for laws so that their kids don't drive.

If 16 year olds are recklessly driving and killing/maiming people etc, then laws will be passed to prevent this but raising the limit. Until then, no one is going to take it away since it's not needed.

The root cause of that is poor public transportation, it seems.

If it happens even one time, it's one time too many. Sounds like you have the same attitude towards it as you do regarding guns and school shootings. How's that working out?

That's the idea. Or to give that full freedom gradually.

My 18 year old hasn't really expressed an interest in driving, but honestly the thought of her driving is terrifying. If she's anything like her mother she'd be getting into 5 accidents before she's 20.

It's teaching responsibility.

Well, I don't know how they do it where you're at but if a 16, 17 year-old out here is driving then they're working, paying for their own gas and all of that. I sure was. Unless you're living in Beverly Hills and your mom and dad have 4 cars in the garage or something.

If it's like vehicular manslaughter? It would be like anything else. All facts would be looked at, there would probably be a push from the prosecution to try the kid as an adult depending on the circumstances.

Yeah. There isn't any kids in adult prison. But yeah, as soon as they hit 18 they'd go "downtown."

But the good thing about kids in juvenile jail is they still get to do their schooling. They get the full high school education in there.

I don't think driving skills or lack of them thereof are genetic, so I wouldn't worry too much about your daughter's potential driving skills once she finally gets a license. :lol: Unless it's her mother giving her lessons or something. But I'm gonna guess her mother is not a driving instructor.

How we do it here? We can't drive a car until we're 18. So no 16-17 year old is driving a car around here legally. But there's 16-17 year olds working part time jobs, of course. 16 is the legal age where you can start working in Portugal.

By the way, we all know how courts can be slow. What if that kid runs over someone to death when they're 17 years old and turn 18 while their trial is still going? Even if they committed the crime when they were underage, they'd be adults by the end of their trial. Could they still get sent to a juvenile jail, then?

If it's that close there would be fairly good odds that they would be tried as an adult.

Maybe. There's states like mine where you can stay in a juvenile detention center until a maximum of 25 years old, but that's pretty unusual.

That sounds rather risky. Imagine if that youngster is arrested for committing a crime of sexual nature and is sharing the same facility with a bunch of 16-17 year olds. Yikes...

Yeah, it's stupid in both directions. It's putting 12-17 year-olds in harms way of 25 year-olds and it's coddling 18-25 year-old criminals in a children's jail instead of the real thing.

I wouldn't go that far. It wasn't really until junior year I started to see quite a few kids showing up in cars. So I wouldn't say that NOT having a car at that point cost you any cool kid points, but conversely if you DO have one as a junior or senior in high school you do GAIN an enormous amount of bonus points. Plus other logistics (instead of just hanging out with your girlfriend and waiting for some random bout of good luck and her parents going out of town for a night, now you can pick up your girlfriend and just pull over somewhere and... you know -- game changer).

If that happened it should be immediate revolution against any locality that enabled it. If it happened on a state level, you leave that state. If it happens nationally bring on the Revolution and the Civil War. I'm in.

There’s literally nothing the federal government can’t do to us, and they know it. Not a single law they ever pass will result in a revolution. We’re that cucked. It’s over.

Truth is that generally speaking, the people should actually be more worried about policy at the state level.

Where I Iive, drunk driving accidents are very common so I'd support this.

A revolution and civil war over breathalyzers? Seems a bit too over the top to me, and I'm generally the anti-government guy around here.

Then again some people were threatening revolutions over mask mandates and covid vaccines, and I don't think it really went anywhere.

I agree with IMJ that it is worth having a revolution over because we've seen how something like that can historically be the first step in insanity all in the name of "safety," but I also agree that we'd be too chickensh** to do anything about it beyond maybe making some angry Youtube videos.

Though I don't know. Let's say it's 2028 and a democrat takes the presidency and the republicans lose the house and the senate and there is a whiplash of EVERYTHING Trump did getting undone almost overnight (of course, except everything the democrats quietly like as in tariff money and oil) and a suddenly doubling down on everything going on before Trump re-took office. I think that sort of whiplash back into evil might just be what it takes for... something. Maybe not enough, but something.

It's 17 here in the UK, unless you have exceptional circumstances requiring mobility provision, then you can get a provisional (learner) licence at 16. I passed at 18 in the year between finishing school and going to university.

Oh, it‘s all about FREEDOM again. Boring.

I mean, it’s the punishment coming before the crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” and all that.

It’s also insane because how ****ed up would it be if your stupid device started malfunctioning? You’re stone sober and end up late for work because it’s glitching out? What if you’re a woman at a party and need to get away from a dangerous situation?

The possibility of malfunction is the only downside I can see in this. Everything else is just people's sensitivities. Cars have various devices built in to check whether everything's safe to go, a breathalyser is just one more.

Let's have them worldwide! I'd have to get out thirty seconds earlier in the morning while the Technodrome right wingers are starting a civil war in the US.

It’s interesting to me that you know how bad Palantir is, but you think a worldwide mandate of a punishment typically reserved for felons is a good thing.

More reasons this is stupid:

- You could be high as **** off of pills or smack or whatever, and this won’t matter.

- I’ve worked with many, many alcoholics. These things can be cheated in more ways than one.

- I recently rented a brand new car and it had all kinds of high tech anti-collision and lane maintaining features. Drunk driving will be on easy mode anyway in a couple years!

lol, the government is no match for my nunchaku skills!

These things would only be related if breathalysers were always online and connected to some database. In that case, I‘d be completely against them! But that‘s not what we‘re talking about here, is it? I don‘t comprehend how it could be seen as ‚punishment‘ apart from stereotypically liberartarian conceptions of ‚freedom‘.

Of course, all of this discussion will be irrelevant in about 15 years when most Americans will just be driven around by robo-cars.

If it’s not a punishment, then why is it only forced upon you after you are convicted of DUI?

Community service isn’t a “punishment” and everyone should be doing it anyway, but if a man with a gun shows up to take you to jail if you refuse to participate… that’s a punishment.

Maybe we can all just start checking in with a probation officer once week, too? There’s no harm in that. It might even prevent a few crimes!

You‘re being slightly hysterical, bro. Blowing into a device with no one except you knowing about the result is very different from being forced to go to a probation officer.

Or there's a tsunami alert in your area and you've got 30 minutes to get out but you just had a drink. Or anything.

I just bought a new car about two months ago and it's littered with safety features to the point of exaggeration. I'm sure the peasant-thinkers love it because the ease of thought for 'safety' but I can't even back my car up and move it in the driveway because it won't shift into gear unless I have my seatbelt on. :lol:

Advocating for a breathalyser everytime someone drives is exactly what the base-minded Technodrome savant would think makes perfect sense. Just like modern leftism, I see a pattern of "I am scared of life in every dimension and anything that imposes control for 'virtue constructs' makes perfect sense". :roll::roll::roll:

And once again the evidence is that these ridiculous things don't happen even though you and others here think they are good ideas. That should tell you something on it's own merits. That you guys are always fighting for outcomes that will borderline never be deployed in a normal society. That's not "a shame", that's "evidence of where you and others here stand against reality and clear thinking".

I’m straight as hell. You’ll never catch me “blowing” anything.

Yeeeeeah, we have different conceptions on what ‚normal‘ means, freedom ends where it could harm others, yadda yadda.

But it‘s good to see how incredibly predictable you are, in how many of your posts have you called someone a ‚peasant-thinker‘, 70 per cent? Seems like a pretty… peasant-like way of arguing.

That‘s more like it. :lol:

It's real: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b85fd...WN5LWRlYmF0ZS8

Not quite, but a lot closer to reality:

Time for civil war!!!

This idea and others, that the forum leftists routinely propose here, are never going to happen. Which on it's own merit makes the ongoing liberal nonsense much more irrational than stating that "ongoing infringements on normalcy and self-sufficiency would lead to physical combat over time".

"Ban guns!" Yeah okay. Keep arguing it with some false sense of intellectual superiority, yet it's never going to happen. That's very telling.
"Put breathalyzers in cars as a matter of law!" Yeah okay. Keep arguing that too as if there's ground on it. Never going to happen, very telling.
"Nazism is overrunning America!" Yeah okay. Keep pushing that BS from your "side". There is no nazism overrunning America, but the cry for virtue in a space where it isn't accurate is very telling.

I could go on and on, but the point? The mismatch between the average leftist-weirdos ongoing "argument" versus "reality" is incredibly revealing. A complete disconnect between idea-and-reality when measured against fact or event.

But by all means, keep discussing as if these positions actually make sense! -thumb's up-