1. Time to REPEAL that language in the infrastructure bill. This, and the crypto measures. REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL, just like we did with the healthcare legislation mandatory penalty. It can be done, but you must vote Republican, for America’s sake. Please.

  2. So now even if ya dont drink your still charged with a DUI 🤔🤔 thank god ya can smoke weed why will me car not start oh cold medicine damn it next no more guns slowly coming to your choice no more how about if ya dui locked up for 5 yrs if ya kill some one life on jail

  3. Let’s put all the invasion of privacy issues aside for a minute. If it’s sensing alcohol on the breath, what prevents it from sensing alcohol from intoxicated passengers? If it’s a truly passive system, then it can only be sensing ambient air in the car. That won’t work. If it’s a skin detection system, it’s no longer passive, UNLESS, those sensors are in the steering wheel only! I have no issue with that. I am all for systems to improve safety. But I won’t get on board for nanny state ideas and policies that completely remove privacy and and freedom of choice.

  4. You’ll benefit big time from Bite’ems 1.2 trillion dollar “arrest them at home before they can even leave the garage” bill. I’ve got a feeling mouthwash and NyQuil sales are gonna plummet.

  5. Cool. Huge government overreach. They will also be able to see if you speed or do anything else. Nothing like being treated like a criminal before a crime even takes place! Also, who will have access to this data they will be collecting?

  6. This only got so far bc of anecdotal evidence only like around 0.6% of people die do and you want to affect everyone life's while ruining the poor ppl is this gonna come our of their pocket no so wtf

  7. What exactly is good about this mandate designed to prevent drunk driving? The idea is great, but wholly unrealistic unless there is going to be a factory interlock on each vehicle. Any kind of passive monitoring (eyes, facial expressions, even down to detecting the amount of pressure applied to pedals) can easily give a false positive and prevent sober people from using their vehicles.

    Now let us jump to ImaginationLand and assume that the technology is perfect as soon as its implemented and never gives a false positive. In ImaginationLand there exists a man named Jimbo. Jimbo likes to drink, and when Jimbo runs out of booze, he likes to go to the store to get more booze. Unfortunately for Jimbo, all new vehicles now prevent him from getting more delicious potato nectar in his current state. Jimbo is upset.


    Jimbo has a moment of clarity! Jimbo doesn't own a new vehicle, not even close! His fleet of rusted minivans don't have any of that fancy tech. So Jimbo hops into the Aerostar and swerves down to the store, just like he's always done.

    Problem solved?

  8. The big problem I have is that this bill mandates technology that will "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
    motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired." This goes far beyond merely sensing alcohol on a driver's breath. Will the system flag you as "potentially impaired" if you're a bit sleepy and blink too often, your speed is slightly fluctuating, or you are slightly meandering within your lane? Who will have access to this information? Will your insurance company be able to get their grubby little hands on it? Once this becomes mandatory, prices on used cars without this privacy invasive tech will go through the roof.

  9. How about we start with the lack of punishment? Law abiding citizens who value their licence do not need this, however a lot of people would be less likely to drive drunk if they knew it could amount to attempted murder just for getting caught. Steepen the penalties instead of trying to control the innocent

  10. Bow down to THE STATE….it's for your own good…. Think of the children….. Sacrifice your liberty for security.

    Our country's founders are rolling in their graves.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.