Just to be sure what I'm getting from your post...
You want people to be able to drive a car while drunk?
I don't think that any sane person wants that; you're inferring something he didn't imply.
The cops aren't everywhere, you know.
That's true. And drunk drivers aren't everywhere either.
Most drunk driving arrests happen AFTER there has been an accident.
That's speculation on your part. Lots of impaired driving arrests happen before accidents occur. For you to say that "most" happen after an accident is yet to be proven; cite your sources of data as proof please.
Do you drive after drinking on an occasional or regular basis?
Some folks do. But that doesn't equate to "impaired". That's where there's often a two-tier test; one for BAC and one for physical impairment. You can be at .04% BAC and drive acceptably well. Or, you could be at 0.0% BAC, but horribly impaired by sleep deprivation, or medicine interactions, etc. Again, you're applying a singular sense of logic where the issue is more complex.
I, personally, would sleep perfectly fine at night if every single drunk person is never able to start their car, EVER.
Yes - that'd be great. But is that reality? No.
Laws are created because Stupid people can't help ruining things for everyone else.
True. And laws punish/restrict people who can control themselves in a civil manner in an overreach to keep "X" from happening (or mandating that "X" happen).
Someone please try and argue that drunk people should be allowed to drive.
No one here is trying to argue that. You're just wanting to make an argument out of something. The underlying question you're dancing around is one of liberty versus implied safety. As if making more laws equates to everyone being safer.
- Murder is illegal; that doesn't stop people who intend to kill.
- Rape is illegal; that doesn't stop those events from happening.
- Theft is illegal .....
You get the picture; very few laws prevent crimes. They have two thrusts of effect:
* we hope that a law will deter a person from doing something
* we hope that if the deterrence didn't work, we can catch the wrong-do'er and (hopefully) "reform" (rehabilitate) the person via a time-out (incarceration).
Laws can be a deterrent for a person who otherwise is a generally decent person, but the typical criminal pays no mind to laws.
'The topic here in this thread can be boiled down to the Law of Unintended Consequences. There is one way this ADIDP law goes right, and a dozen ways it goes sideways. I have serious doubts how all this tech is going to be integrated into a vehicle and satisfy the necessary criteria:
- the vehicle must detect and prevent impaired driving, AND ...
- not otherwise inhibit/prevent the legal operation of the vehicle
How is a BAC monitor going to accurately detect the driver's breath and be able to discern it from others in the car? If the driver is sober and all his passengers are intoxicated (he's the designated driver), how accurate will the breath analyzer be to select the driver over the others? For that matter, if the driver was intoxicated and the only person in the car, how well do you think the tech will work when he rolls down all the windows and causes a large vortex in the cabin?
How will the behavior tech (the tracing of drivers actions) be interpreted? How does the system interpret spirited driving versus drunk driving? Are you in favor of shutting down vehicles just because someone crossed over the lane marker without using a turn signal first? Or perhaps the driver is swerving over the line repeatedly to avoid puddles of mud on a desolate road? Or maybe the driver is looking out the window frequently to view spectacular scenery? Or he/she is wearing sunglasses so dark the eye-tracking system can't be accurate? Maybe the driver is a young female trying to escape her boyfriend from battering her and her driving behavior is very erratic in an attempt to flee, yet the car is going to shut down so she can't escape?
I could go on for dozens of examples of how this ADIDP tech is prone to failure of intent. There's one way this tech goes right and literally dozens of ways it goes wrong. I, for one, do NOT advocate for fixing one problem by implementing dozens of other problems, which is often the result of these "good intent" laws.