.svg/300px-Bellows_(PSF).svg.png)
It’s for *your* safety...why can’t you see that? ;)
Coming soon to all cars, the presumption your guilty until proven innocent... why don’t we just outlaw alcohol?
Oh yeah... that worked about as well as drug prohibition...
How about we outlaw cars? That’ll sole this once and for all!
Don’t worry, most of the congressmen and senators would end up with one installed.
Has anybody over there heard about "driving gloves"?
This is the kind of nonsense law that ‘conservative’ Pubbie Congresscritters just luuuuuv to climb on board...
It’s ‘for da Chillll-drun’ after all....
Punish everyone for the actions of a few.
Like the TSA.
Unfortunately this sort of thing occasionally goes beyond bribery lobbying. Remember Bruce Ivans, the guy who sent the anthrax letters? Turns out he was the holder of several patents for an anthrax vaccine. He had been trying for years to get the Army to mandate it for the troops without success.
Breathalysers are going to be required equipment within 5 years?
Does this imply that we are all going to have to blow before we drive?
this company is full of scum.
they actually had salesmen going from judge to judge advocating this white elephant.
Coming soon too: banning all types of firearms in the name of public safety. So only the military and police can have them. Oh, I forgot, street gangs too.
“And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry about the possibility that this campaign will expand to demand the devices in all new cars.”
I predict the author is wrong about that. Once able to tie their corporate agenda to a “moral” agenda the manufacturers of such devices, and their moral-advocate friends, will not rest at trying to continually “expand the market”, by law, for such devices. [Once an addict with success - for government assistance - always an addict.]
Where this agenda belongs is not with the law but with automobile insurance providers. Insurers willing to insure someone with prior DWI charges should be the ones that have a right to know (they are the ones insuring the driver) if an insured driver is keeping to their no-drinking while driving pledges. An insurer unwilling to demand the driver install such a device is the one foolishly taking a financial risk on what may result from their driving.
In my book, other than the proper fines and suspensions for DWI, and convictions for damages, injuries and death to others during a DWI episode, there is no further need for the law in these matters. Simply adding new and additional “laws” on top of laws, over the same “crimes” only makes the legal code longer, not better.
There is a perverse mindset that legislators get into that assumes that no matter what the law already says, they are always supposed to write new laws, again, and again, and again as if their busy-work is helpful instead of what it really is - the work of busybodies.
A 5 year pilot program should be implemented where ALL elected officials, judges, celebrities, professional athletes, journalists, and their immediate familiy members, be mandated to use the devices.
I’m surprised that Rick Perry hasn’t mandated these Interlocks on ALL cars here in Texas.
...but then again, perhaps he hasn’t been offered anything in return.
Is that f***ing zombie EVER going to pass on?