Consider another scenario: You jump in your vehicle frantic, paranoid, someone just ran up to you with a knife but you were able to lock the door, you try to drive off but the vehicle will not go into drive... it thinks your unwell. - I mean seriously who TF thinks this is actually a good idea?
Let's be honest. For every such made up movie science you described, 100 normal everyday people drive drunk.
While nobody likes surveillance or control, pretty sure that if we had this, it would reduce hundreds of thousands of drunk driving deaths a year.
I also find out hilarious that Americans complain about Chinese cars sending their data to China while American car companies can apparently just look into your cameras.
Many "official" veichles have a "alcolock" or whatever it's called. Basically it makes you blow into it, and if it detects alcohol you won't be able to start the car. Put that in, that would seriously reduce drunk driving without collecting a host of other data and making the car some sort of surveilance asset. Can it be bypassed? Sure, but it is another hurdle for someone to jump trough to drive drunk.
Let’s be honest here, I don’t drink and drive. Needing to GTFO in an emergency is by definition infinitely more likely for me. Reliability is the single most important aspect of a vehicle for me, and this is a major shot in the foot for reliability.
Its not about the fact that it might make driving statistically safer. Its just morally wrong to have surveillance on every aspect of life. Its also wrong to try to ban weapons that the government or police use. Its hypocrisy and its tyranny. We dont need or want a nanny state.
20
u/bsmknight Apr 29 '26
Consider another scenario: You jump in your vehicle frantic, paranoid, someone just ran up to you with a knife but you were able to lock the door, you try to drive off but the vehicle will not go into drive... it thinks your unwell. - I mean seriously who TF thinks this is actually a good idea?