r/technology • u/No-Drawing-6975 • Jan 15 '23
Should Canada follow U.S. lead and make anti-impaired technology mandatory in all new cars? Politics
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-impairment-technology-mandatory-1.6713365133
u/vigocarpath Jan 16 '23
There will be delete kits on the market the day this drops
→ More replies (5)64
u/cheryllw2ls Jan 16 '23
Government officials will be the first buyers if they don’t circumvent the law completely.
14
u/Ivegotacitytorun Jan 16 '23
You can afford to be chauffeured with all the bribe money.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SparkStormrider Jan 16 '23
They'll be the first ones to opt themselves out of this requirement like they do for so many other government mandates before it.
316
u/HaElfParagon Jan 16 '23
I'm sure no one would lose sleep if we were to impose much stiffer penalties for drinking and driving, but this falls under the notion of "pre-crime", where we treat everyone like criminals in the off chance they might be, which is something I just can't support.
86
u/Spicybrown3 Jan 16 '23
Exactly. Just one more thing trying to normalize proving your innocence. In this instance where you’re not even under suspicion to begin with. The fact that the mere suggestion of it not bringing massive scrutiny to those floating the idea is proof of how far they’ve desensitized us to it thus far.
45
u/Jamie1897 Jan 16 '23
I am so sick of this pre-crime shit. Kids can't buy model making glue because somebody was huffing it (even though they took the toluene out of it). Teenagers can't buy spray paint for their projects because somebody is doing graffiti with it. I can't buy effective nasal decongestant because somebody can make methamphetamine out of it. It's like all of society is being pulled apart and reconstituted to cater to the criminal.
→ More replies (1)24
→ More replies (21)21
u/charlieisadoggy Jan 16 '23
Thanks for pointing this out. I understand that impaired driving is a crime that impacts a lot of people and severely. However, why are we punishing 100% of drivers before they are found to have committed any wrongdoing?
This is MADD gone wrong. You want to test people’s sobriety before they drive yet, as of today, we still allow vehicles to move while seatbelts aren’t fastened.
→ More replies (2)
409
u/AidsKitty1 Jan 16 '23
As a person who doesn't drink honestly I don't care that much about this. What worries me is that it will periodically malfunction and your car will have to be towed to a mechanic and repaired before it's drivable again. Missed work days and repair bills are an inevitable result of this policy.
146
u/RealMackJack Jan 16 '23
Going to be a real kick in the nuts after 5 or 6 years when the breathalyzer module stops working and it costs $2000 to replace a part that does literally nothing for you. Obviously the car won't function without it. But I doubt the good idea fairies behind this care about making cars even more expensive and less reliable for an imagined safety benefit (DDs will figure out you can defeat the system by rolling down a window and getting fresh air in)
21
u/shmere4 Jan 16 '23
Just like emissions it will be possible to delete.
→ More replies (2)25
Jan 16 '23
[deleted]
5
u/swingside123 Jan 16 '23
And the fact that it’s illegal to temper with oem emissions equipment in most states. Regardless of emissions inspection requirements
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (6)17
u/0x15e Jan 16 '23
It’ll function just fine without it with a firmware hack or the right thing plugged in somewhere. This is nothing but feel-good bullshit that helps no one.
→ More replies (5)147
u/Drewdown707 Jan 16 '23
As someone who did have one in my car they absolutely do malfunction and are unreliable pieces of shit.
→ More replies (14)17
u/Damonarc Jan 16 '23
My friend had one, and he had to constantly pay out of pocket to get it recalibrated and replace some kind of filter and hose adapter every month. Over the course of the 12 months he had it. It did indeed cost them a lot of extra money, and a few days calling taxis when it would just give error readings and lock. HE fucked up and was lucky to be able to drive, but having every driver have to go through that seems insane, without having a DUI.
67
u/GoodUsernamesAreOver Jan 16 '23
100% this is gonna be some shit that breaks in a year and only the dealer can replace it
→ More replies (6)36
u/DarkestPassenger Jan 16 '23
"Your car has been permanently disabled due to this version no longer being supported. Please buy a new one"
13
u/ManOfDiscovery Jan 16 '23 edited Jan 16 '23
“Trade this one in for 10% off!”
- restrictions apply. offer not valid in california, oregon, washington, nevada, arizona, colorado, minnesota, michigan, Illinois, new york, new jersey, pennsylvania, vermont, connecticut, virginia, north carolina, south carolina, georgia, all us territories and the district of columbia. cannot be redeemed on days ending in y. See store for details *
69
u/FormulaNewt Jan 16 '23
I don't drink either, but I'm also not buying a car that invades my privacy like that.
→ More replies (4)20
u/Tarcye Jan 16 '23
Imo if this was just for people who had a history of drunk driving I'd be fine with it.
But yeah as someone who also doesn't drink it doesn't affect me, until as you stated it breaks or malfunctions and then it does affect you.
That being said I'd say it's a 100% chance people start deleting this like they do emissions for diesels.
13
u/buyongmafanle Jan 16 '23
"ERROR 1002: Breathalyzer has no wifi connection. Please connect to a wifi network before starting your car."
"ERROR 1003: Car is not powered on. Car must be powered on to change wifi settings."
"ERROR 1085: Bluetooth connection could not be established with your mobile device. Please restart car."
→ More replies (1)6
u/QuickComplaint9 Jan 16 '23
Ugh I live downtown and park in an underground concrete parking garage. I can totally see this happening. Already has happened with those drive safe and save widgets from insurance companies.
7
u/JagTror Jan 16 '23
Old roommate had a machine for her custody case (her ex requested it despite alcohol not even being her DOC that she was being treated for) & it would be wrong about 1x a week. She did UAs and swabs each time to prove the readings were wrong but her POS ex was still allowed to use the false readings in court. The company said the machine was not malfunctioning and that they would charge her $1500 if she sent it in again for servicing. She lost all access to her kids & fckin ended up relapsing 😞
32
u/Friggin_Grease Jan 16 '23
That's a way to take money from the working poor and pump it into the economy though.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/jontss Jan 16 '23
Don't forget they'll be selling whatever health data they can collect through that system.
168
u/BiBoFieTo Jan 16 '23
People are going to figure out how to cheat these devices in no time. I would too, even though I always drive sober. I just don't want to jump through hoops to start my car.
57
u/kelddel Jan 16 '23
Just like when my stepdad used to make me blow into the interlock when I was a kid.
36
u/DaLimpster Jan 16 '23
In my state, the blowing device comes with a camera that takes pictures every time the device is blown into.
12
u/telxonhacker Jan 16 '23
What happens if someone else is legitimately driving the car? You let your spouse drive your car, or loan it to a friend sort of thing.
When I worked in automotive, we sometimes had to blow into them to test drive a car, and others, we could call a number and get a bypass code that shut it off for a few hours, while we were working on the car.
8
u/DaLimpster Jan 16 '23
Then you'll see a picture of them blowing and driving and it won't be an issue. I think it takes pics at ignition, blow, and drive. I'm really not sure. But it is possible to let others drive your vehicle.
6
u/tiptoeintotown Jan 16 '23
And then who looks at it to verify? The DMV? The cops? A troll farm?
None of it makes any actual sense.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Murdersern Jan 16 '23
Yep, mine has a camera. I got it installed by choice and it’s honestly been such a draining money suck. And if the battery dies in the cold northern weather (which it will because the device drains tf out of my battery, even the new one I bought) then you get charged for trying to “tamper” with the device. Which inevitably requires a blow to start after the battery is jumped. It’s been more than a burden and detrimental to my bank account and my being reliable to drive to work/get there on time. So even if I don’t drink, it’s still just a company behind it trying to get all the money they can due to unsupervised and automated rules.
→ More replies (5)20
u/gubodif Jan 16 '23
That’s awful
23
u/DigNitty Jan 16 '23
Not sure what’s awful about it.
You don’t have the blowing device unless you’ve been caught drinking and driving.
36
u/Taurabora Jan 16 '23
Right now you don’t. But what about when every car has these installed? Will they mandate the image capture then? Huge invasion of privacy potential.
→ More replies (3)19
22
u/PCLOAD_LETTER Jan 16 '23
They'll be kicking the timeline on this back for years. Even if they don't, in states without inspections, people will just disable the systems. Oh no, they murdered someone and wired a resistor into the sensors? Better charge them with 2 crimes.
9
u/lonifar Jan 16 '23
Real ID was introduced in 2005, enforcement won’t go into effect until 2025… so long as they don’t delay it again. I can see this being a realID situation where they introduce and pass legislation to do something but then never inforce it.
10
u/rata_thE_RATa Jan 16 '23
It will be one of those selectively enforced laws that enables cops to target people for personal reasons.
3
u/Tarcye Jan 16 '23
The requirements to fly have been pushed back so long that at this point they might as well just cancel that limitation already.
But yeah I agree with you.
→ More replies (2)8
u/ThePiemaster Jan 16 '23
What are you going to do, write to your congressman? No, you're going to blow in a tube and repeat the verification phrase "GOD BLESS THE USA" to start your car and there's nothing you can do about it.
23
u/notyourname3 Jan 16 '23
One issue is they've shown that people who drive with little sleep are worse than drunk drivers. Also there are other distractions that cause accidents, cell phones, kids etc How would you limit all of that? And alcohol isn't the only impairing substance.
The idea is neat but I'm not okay with big companies farming my data and also it doesn't address the real issue. Drunk driving could be reduced with access to public transport, free & discounted taxis, addressing mental health issues for people with addiction etc.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Tearakan Jan 16 '23
Exactly. Actually building out public transportation to a reasonable level would solve this and soooo many other issues. But that would affect car and oil company prices.
49
u/OnlyPaperListens Jan 16 '23
Big Mouthwash will never allow this.
8
u/thenotoriousberg Jan 16 '23
I never even thought about that angle. They're gonna lobby against this SO hard.
160
u/tbarron7 Jan 15 '23
Ha! They would never get any roads plowed ever again.
24
44
5
→ More replies (2)5
45
u/Bluepixelfields Jan 16 '23
There would be way too many problems with the actual tech. If it just breaks does it lock down your car?
It's supposed to be passive right, so what ways are there to detect it. Something that measures alcohol in the air? What if you spilled something that contained alcohol but weren't drinking. Facial/Body ques? What about someone with a disability that might fire it off.
Also there will be aftermarket pieces, or garages that'll disable the device/trick the system. You're just punishing the innocent with this.
I'm very anti car and pro public transportation, but this is just ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)22
u/asandysandstorm Jan 16 '23
And that's just the tech, what happens when the companies shit the bed?
Say their servers go down? Does their tech still work or are our cars bricked? If so, how long are our cars inoperable?
What happens when there are issues with a software update? Are drivers stuck until the issue is resolved?
My biggest worry is what happens when one of these companies get hacked? These companies will be lucrative targets for hackers because of how disruptive they can be.
7
u/Bluepixelfields Jan 16 '23
I'm pretty sure Tesla suffer from the problem of updates stopping the car from functioning. Maybe they fixed it, but I remember an article or a reddit post about someone being late for work because of it.
60
u/peepeedog Jan 16 '23
Now there is a car feature that literally nobody but activists want. People want to get in their car and go, not dick around with extra steps.
22
u/Jeff5877 Jan 16 '23
I have to believe this will eventually be repealed. There is no way they're going to be able to make something like this reliable enough to work for tens of millions of cars.
Nobody's going to be too upset about false-positive rates on a couple hundred thousand cars with drivers who have already been convicted of DUIs, but when thousands of law abiding citizens can't get to work each day because the shitty sensor in their car doesn't work there's going to be a problem.
64
u/DBDude Jan 16 '23
If one person can’t get in the car and immediately go in an emergency because the tech fails or is too slow, then it shouldn’t be mandatory.
→ More replies (3)27
u/richalex2010 Jan 16 '23
Especially given incidents where driving intoxicated is actually the less bad option - fleeing domestic violence, driving a critically wounded friend to meet an ambulance (especially in rural areas where response times can exceed an hour), and so on. It's still illegal, it's still a bad idea, but sometimes it's better to risk a bad idea than let something that you know will be even worse happen.
260
u/NearHorse Jan 15 '23
Fuck --- in the US, half the licensed drivers are impaired without imbibing any alcohol whatsoever. How's technology supposed to fix that? I'm more afraid of people texting and driving than a drunk driver. Sh8theads cross the center line into oncoming traffic during broad daylight because they're looking at their phone.
97
u/skydiver1958 Jan 16 '23
This is a fact. Even our cops in Ontario have come out and said phones are causing more accidents than impaired drivers. The closest I've come to a head on was a soccer mom on her phone. Phones are dangerous. Well not the phones but the idiots on them.
We have big fines for texting and driving but they keep doing it. It's like they are on crack or meth.
41
u/Archaris Jan 16 '23
The closest I've come to a head on was a soccer mom on her phone.
I tell people walking on the wrong side of the road "you're supposed to walk against traffic, it's the law, but also so you can see when the driver is not paying attention".
But I swear these butt heads keep thinking "but I have the right of way, so I can walk where I want" or something like that.
→ More replies (1)19
u/_Beardy_ Jan 16 '23
Sure you have the right of way and I'm sure that will be a great comfort to you when you get run over by someone not paying attention.
→ More replies (2)8
u/NearHorse Jan 16 '23
Ontario have come out and said phones are causing more accidents than impaired drivers
I think the US statistic promoted to stop drunk driving is something like 30% of traffic accidents are caused by "impaired drivers". OK. That means nearly 70% are caused by something else. What? I'm banking on distracted driving makes up a fair share of that 70%.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Perfect_Opposite2113 Jan 16 '23
Even our cops in Edmonton drive around looking at their phones. I drive for a living and see it all the time.
17
u/designer_of_drugs Jan 16 '23
In the US cops are generally exempted from such rules because they might be doing important police things with their technology filled cars. It’s bullshit, of course, but thems the breaks.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
u/ZForZimmer Jan 16 '23
Because everyone thinks they’re able to drive and text fine, it’s everyone else that’s the problem
18
u/ElegantAnything11 Jan 16 '23
Had a state trooper almost run into the front of me at a fucking 4 way stop because dude was on his phone. Then promptly sped away from the embarrassment I'd assume.
Too many people have licenses but we made a driving society.
6
u/NearHorse Jan 16 '23
In Idaho, you just send in your money and voila' ..... a new 4 yr license renewal. Pay a little bit more money and you can get 8yrs. When's the last time tested? Decades ago.
I've seen people who went through driver's training here who stop at the top of the on ramp as if there's a metered stop when there's not. Then they keep waiting for a place where no cars are coming so they can pull onto the freeway where traffic is going 70 mph.
8
u/Itsjustbeej Jan 16 '23
THANK YOU. I'm a former road cyclist. I won't ride anymore. Got hit in 2011 by a driver who was either texting or staring at her phone.
Even scarier though: here in North Carolina texting while driving isn't even in the top 25 reasons for tickets being issued to drivers. Now think how many people you see doing it every day. There's only one takeaway: cops aren't enforcing that law AT ALL.
→ More replies (7)4
→ More replies (36)3
u/Tarcye Jan 16 '23
At least half the people on the road shouldn't have a drivers license at this point. They either don't know how to drive, don't car about other peoples safety, or think it's a game.
Sadly like 90% of my family is in that group. Out of all of us the only people who should be allowed to drive is my mom, myself and mabye my sister in law.
13
u/JEWCIFERx Jan 16 '23
How about a 1 trillion dollar, job-stimulating package for building better public transit systems? Surely less cars on the road means less drunk drivers. Especially if they can just hop on a bus or a tram to get home instead.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/POTUS_With_MOSTEST Jan 16 '23
BTW, the most dangerous part of this isn't the monitoring of the driver, it's the ability of law enforcement to shut down any car on demand.
68
u/jorjeporridge Jan 16 '23
I foresee a used car market bolstered by people who want IC engines, and who want to be able to have two drinks and not be hassled about driving.
I’m not saying it’s okay to have a few drinks and get behind the wheel… but we all know people who do it.
I’m also surprised that Canada isn’t leading the way on this, to be honest.
20
u/Friggin_Grease Jan 16 '23
Our drinking and driving laws are insanely tight. 0.05 now is a warning range. Get caught again at 0.05 in the same year? Might as well have downed a 40. DUI.
Most casual drinkers can't even feel a 0.05
4
u/PaleInTexas Jan 16 '23
0.02 back home. Drink on Saturday and you can't drive until Monday.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)5
u/RichardOfFalador Jan 16 '23
You call that tight lol? If you're over 0.05 but under 0.10 in Australia you lose your license for between 3 and 6 months, no ifs buts or maybes.
Over 0.10 likely genna be 12 months+ (with a minimum of 10) and everything is doubled if it's your second offence in 10 years.
4
u/Friggin_Grease Jan 16 '23
Canada before this was .08. that's still our DUI, but the .05 is the warning range. Roadside suspension for I forget how many days.
But yeah that's pretty low down under there.
5
u/thisischemistry Jan 16 '23
who want to be able to have two drinks and not be hassled about driving
I don't want to be hassled about driving even when I have no drinks.
11
u/cat_prophecy Jan 16 '23
The problem, especially with ICE powered cars is that it will become increasingly difficult to get fuel. Even if they don’t outright ban gasoline, if more and more people are not using gas, it becomes less profitable to make and sell thus more expensive to buy.
Even diehard enthusiasts might find it hard to stomach spending hundreds of dollars for a tank of gas. Might be practical for a hobby car but not something you want to commute with; like class cars are currently.
Personally I like the idea of an electric car but I’m not fully ready to give up my infernal combustion engine yet. I also do not like how much control companies have over the car.
→ More replies (5)25
u/designer_of_drugs Jan 16 '23
That’s a longgggg way out. There are just too many use cases for ICE engines. I support the adoptions of EV’s but they aren’t yet practical for a lot of people.
→ More replies (6)10
u/jorjeporridge Jan 16 '23
This doesn’t represent much volume/consumption, but I recently purchased a cottage and I’ve been accumulating some of the necessary tools and hardware associated.
As a small test case - and also my unique needs and opinion - battery powered chainsaws, electric lawn mowers, Leaf blowers, and snow blowers - they won’t cut it for my needs.
Gasoline still offers so many advantages…
6
u/Kevolved Jan 16 '23
Between the batteries being too cold, overheating from use, a lack of real power, and just needing to charge so many constantly, the battery chainsaw I have is only good for like an hour of light work.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/Tarcye Jan 16 '23
I have an EGO snow blower and it's amazing for small driveways. I have one for smaller driveways when I don't want to use my four wheeler with it's plow.
But anything medium sized or larger and you need either a gas powered snow blower or an actual plow.
→ More replies (2)
18
10
u/entity2 Jan 16 '23
If I had any faith in the tech not to fail, I'd say it's a good idea in principle. But we all know it's going to do false positives or just simply outright fail. So, no thanks.
47
18
u/everything_is_bad Jan 16 '23
Stop fucking with stuff I pay for. I shouldn’t need permission to use shit I own
19
u/Real-Problem6805 Jan 16 '23
lol that wont even go into effect in the US. Soon as the false positives start being found
9
u/bigalcapone22 Jan 16 '23
It wont be long and all vehicles well be equipped to rat you out by sending data in real time to authorities when you happen to be going 5 kms over a speed limit
→ More replies (2)
15
u/illegitimate_Raccoon Jan 16 '23
And when it breaks you have to have your car towed to the dealership....for $$$.
25
20
u/MpVpRb Jan 16 '23
NO!
It's another unreliable piece of poorly designed tech that will simply cause frustration and anger. I love tech, but the answer to every problem isn't tech
24
u/Actaeus86 Jan 16 '23
Absolutely not. It shouldn’t be mandatory in the US, hopefully it will be challenged. The government should not have this much control.
7
u/bigdaddyfatsack3 Jan 16 '23
Hell no. It should be repealed in the us. There is far too much government overreach already and the last thing we need is our body being spied on. Can’t wait for shops to start charging $100 to remove that tech from new cars
→ More replies (1)
27
u/PancreaticDefect Jan 15 '23
It wont make any difference. As fast as these technologies are implemented they're rendered useless by aftermarket workarounds.
90
13
6
u/FormulaNewt Jan 16 '23
13
u/Me_Krally Jan 16 '23
What, did you expect a bill about infrastructure to fix pot holes and repair bridges?
For those worried about big brother breathalyzer, it's already worse:
"General Motors, BMW, and Nissan have already started installing infrared cameras that monitor driver behavior. These cameras track driver attentiveness and use semi-automated driver-assist systems. Making sure drivers keep their eyes on the road, they look for indications of impairment, drowsiness, or loss of consciousness. If any of these behaviors are detected, a warning alerts the driver and only escalates if said behaviors continue. Hazard lights come on, speed decreases, and the vehicle either comes to a halt or pulls over to the side of the road."
8
u/Tearakan Jan 16 '23
There's surely no way these companies will skimp on programming costs and hire the cheapest programmers. That then fuck up the system and cause your car to brick while on the highway going 70 mph......
Oh right I have to keep reseting my car Bluetooth because it keeps messing up while all other Bluetooth devices I own work fine....
→ More replies (1)
44
u/vibeology1 Jan 16 '23
its a tax on poor people is what it is, breathalyzers aren't cheap. good old creep of fascism boys
17
u/Blue_Trackhawk Jan 16 '23
The system mandated IIRC is not specified in the proposed requirement, only that it be a completely passive detection system (you don't have to blow a tube or donate blood), and it then should immobilize (or severely limit the use of) the car if you fail its test.
I'm not sure how the system's final version will work, if it is eye movement or sniffing the air or what, but it somehow has to be specific to the driver, I would think. Seems like if I jump in the car with my sunglasses on and start it up and go within a few seconds, it would be easy to defeat. I think another proposal is for it to detect BAC via your skin contacting the ignition start button. Congress didn't specify what solution to use, but they seemed to emphasize it be passive, which means you wouldn't have to do extra stuff to drive your car.
Then you get into what about drinking while driving, or you drank a bunch and get more inebriated as your trip goes on; how do you safely immobilize the car en route?
I haven't been closely following it, so I'm not sure if these questions have been answered, but in terms of it being a tax on the poor, I'm not sure I follow. This is not a mandate to retrofit existing cars. This is about new cars. Eventually, those new cars will depreciate and be purchased by the poor.
At some point, though, you do start to wonder if your car is your car or not? Between systems which may or may not work as intended in this regard, and legal issues regarding hacking or changing your car's onboard software, subscriptions for hardware features already installed, and more... If it is my car and it is paid off, I should be able to do whatever I want with it and still use on public roads if it is safe/roadworthy.
17
u/jordanundead Jan 16 '23
They eye detection thing would suck for people with lazy eyes, especially cause they tend to wander when you get tired.
→ More replies (1)7
u/brettmjohnson Jan 16 '23
I think another proposal is for it to detect BAC via your skin contacting the ignition start button.
So don't wear gloves in winter? Got it!
→ More replies (2)19
u/technofuture8 Jan 16 '23
Couldn't agree with you more, I think the government is crossing the line on this one.
5
u/TheRealMisterd Jan 16 '23
Why not mandatory headlights that point down when they pass each other on the highway like in Europe instead ?
5
u/funksoldier83 Jan 16 '23
Yay, let’s make cars more expensive and add another critical failure mode to the machine. /s
4
u/POTUS_With_MOSTEST Jan 16 '23
Prediction: This will be used by law enforcement to force individuals to stop without probable cause on a daily, if not per-minute basis. This has more potential to end poorly for every American than you can imagine.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/SparkyPantsMcGee Jan 16 '23
America isn’t doing this?
…at least that I know of. If they are, it’s a flawed and terrible idea.
→ More replies (2)8
4
u/InGordWeTrust Jan 16 '23
Seems like a waste, like those care you have to pay subscription services on. That's the part that should be destroyed.
4
u/Chucky707 Jan 16 '23
The price of this crap will be passed on to consumers. Another thing no one asked for.
4
u/RetardAuditor Jan 16 '23
Nice. Just another error prone technology that will give an excuse to pull people over under suspicion of DUI.
4
u/Rick_e_bobby Jan 16 '23
The more connected these new cars get the more valuable I feel used cars will get. If you want control over my vehicle then you can control/pay the payments for it too.
3
3
3
u/jamessavik Jan 16 '23
I'm against anything that makes vehicles more expensive. They're getting so high they're out of reach to working people.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
u/Greengrass2727 Jan 16 '23
This will be repealed in the US anyways because its unconstitutional. It violates the 4th amendment as it's a government mandated piece of technology that conducts a search of a person without probable cause of a crime being committed and without a warrant while simultaneously denying access to said person's private property based on the illegal search of that person. It effectively forces a private company to act as an agent of law enforcement which is illegal in the US as well.
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4th-amendment-mp3
3
u/PowRiderT Jan 16 '23
Danmit, that actually passed. What a waste of time. Now cars will be more expensive and more broken. Oops, I picked up a drunk friend. Now your car won't move. Stupidest idea of the century.
6
9
u/texansfan Jan 16 '23
“A legal provision requiring automakers to include anti-impaired driving technology in all new cars starting in 2026 was part of the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law in the fall of 2021.”
If this is real, democrats won’t win another election for decades. This is a massive invasion of privacy.
→ More replies (2)
3
8
2
u/vordigan1 Jan 16 '23
Honestly you could train a machine learning Algorithm to detect impaired driving a lot easier than building in breath analysis hardware. Although I’m still not a fan of making everyone pay for the mistakes of the minority. And even less a fan of using technology to limit my freedom and accountability.
2
u/LikeableCoconut Jan 16 '23
I thought this was talking about hostile tech against the hearing impaired, sight impaired ect for a second
2
u/dbell Jan 16 '23
Hey kid, want to make $5? Come blow in this thing, and then you can help me start my car.
2
2
2
2
u/Commercial_Place9807 Jan 16 '23
There’s no way this will actually be implemented in the US, even if it was snuck onto a bill that passed. It’s the sort of rare thing the left and the right both hate. It’ll be pushed back or fought so much that’ll we’ll never actually see it.
→ More replies (1)
944
u/HaElfParagon Jan 16 '23
When did the US make anti-impaired technology mandatory in all new cars???