If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?
Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.

I don’t know a single person who approves of drunk driving - let’s get that out of the way. This is just Big Brotherism of the worst kind. I mentioned this as a comment on someone else’s blog just the other day and here we are with a news story on it.

There exists no reason to do this. I’m not even certain I like it for convicted DUIs. To add insult to injury, we’d have to pay for it. I didn’t like paying for closed captioning equipment in my tv because I don’t need it. My hearing-impaired friends don’t believe we should pay for it either.

As for DUIs, they should be tested on the scene. If they blow positive, shoot them and they’ll never do it again. I’ve seen statistics that show a frightening amount of repeat DUIs. I don’t care if they drive into a lake but they can hurt others…

While we’re inventing devices to help us `be safe,’ how about a sensor that detects stupid drivers and shuts down the engine? Or an ignition interlock that fails to start when it detects a cell phone. How about a turn signal lever that impales the driver who doesn’t use it?