Just a reminder of what got passed in the infrastructure bill that we can all look forward to....you will have to prove you're not impaired via breathalyzer or other BAC measurement method to start your car. In addition, you will have some type of AI monitoring whether or not you are impaired so it can shut your car off while driving in case you got by the startup check.

I would recommend that everyone buy a car right before this goes into effect (assuming you can) because it only applies to new passenger vehicles as written. In reading the text, we have up to 6 years before it's implemented, but it could happen sooner depending on how motivated they are in getting this done.

I've only included the key parts below. Rest of it is stats and other irrelevant stuff.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY.

(5) to ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving

fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor
vehicles.


(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology'' means a system that--
(A) can--
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a
motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver
may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an
impairment is detected;
(B) can--
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood
alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is
equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration
described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States
Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a
blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is
detected; or
(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).


And this won't be going away unless it's repealed later because as written they cover the potential that the tech won't exist in this timeframe by merely kicking this to an annual assessment until the tech becomes a reality. Thus, it's going to happen.

Maybe by then we will have self-driving cars and this legislation will be moot.

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

Driving and murdering will still happen as Illegal aliens only buy junkers.

More reason to refresh my 360K mi 06 Duramax...

Passenger motor vehicle means every motor vehicle designed principally for the transportation of persons and includes vehicles which utilize a truck chassis, but have a seating capacity for four or more passengers.

C@LAg said:

---

add impacted by pot smoking to the bill dammit!

---

They have. In perusing this glorious achievement of bill writing I noticed elsewhere that they have replaced all impaired by alcohol specific wording with more general wording to cover all drugs and pretty much anything that would impair your driving.

You good, bro!

No.

Well, I'm sure all of the DAs and the county budgets won't miss the stacks and stacks of cash that prosecuting DWI cases brings….

So Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is sooner than we thought?

****, time to buy that king ranch bumper for my '08 Impala

So basically another government regulation. Another increase in cost of cars

beerad12man said:

---

So basically another government regulation. Another increase in cost of cars

---

Yep.

In parallel, the new mileage tax to augment or replace the gas tax is going to differ by vehicle type based on it's impact to the infrastructure. Thus, if you drive a truck you are going to pay more in tax than if you drive a car.

Trucks are already pushing $80-100K. Imagine what they are going to cost once you add this tech and then pay higher taxes because it's a truck.

RulesForTheeNotForMe said:

---

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

---

They will exempt themselves.

Just about to post this. They exempted themselves from Obama care and gave themselves a raise.
Does anyone actually think they give a **** about the populous?

Make cars more expensive. Racist.

Science Denier said:

---

RulesForTheeNotForMe said:

---

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

---

They will exempt themselves.

---

Just as Texas and other like-minded should exempt themselves from D.C.'s zone of influence.

Hopefully its on the ballot next year so can have failed first precent, ala Brexit, set.

All this bull**** for community college and pre k. What a joke.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

All this bull**** for community college and pre k. What a joke.

---

Community college has been cut....for now.

RulesForTheeNotForMe said:

---

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

---

L
O
Freaking
L
That you think politicians won't be exempt from having these.

Don't forget...10 Republicans voted for this. Even AOC and Omar voted against this bill!
Their excuse will be...didn't have time to read it before voting...a very weak position as they could have just elected to not vote.

oldarmyjess66 said:

---

Don't forget...10 Republicans voted for this. Even AOC and Omar voted against this bill!
Their excuse will be...didn't have time to read it before voting...a very weak position as they could have just elected to not vote.

---

They voted against it because it wasn't left wing enough and they wanted the other bill prioritized and it ultimately wasn't. They've already stated that.

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

You agree with this but cry over the heartbeat bill. Tell me you're not a hypocrite.

How do you libs feel about getting this present? You voted for it.

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

You agree with this but cry over the heartbeat bill. Tell me you're not a hypocrite.

---

What the heck? When did I bring up abortion?

Can you not focus on the discussion?

Who does that? If you don't have a valid response on one topic, you just bring up an entirely different one?

Good grief. This is worse than your vaccine mandate argument.

Public institution and private institutions making drug testing for employees are not the federal government. This is the federal government mandating something for all drivers/cars to follow. This is an overreach by anyone who cares about freedom. Sorry that you hate freedom.

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

That's a very dump comparison. One is a private company and the other is the government.

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

---

I respectfully disagree.

You are not being searched. Your car simply won't start if you are drunk and trying to drive. You won't be charged with a crime and you can just call an Uber, which you should have done to begin with.

To get on an airplane, you are searched because you may pose a public threat. Nobody cares about that or throws up 4th Amendment challenges at the TSA -- and that is way more intrusive than ensuring drunk drivers can't drive on public roads.

This legislation will save lives, court, law enforcement, and prison costs. It will also make us safer.

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

---

I respectfully disagree.

You are not being searched. Your car simply won't start if you are drunk and trying to drive. You won't be charged with a crime and you can just call an Uber, which you should have done to begin with.

To get on an airplane, you are searched because you may pose a public threat. Nobody cares about that or throws up 4th Amendment challenges at the TSA -- and that is way more intrusive than ensuring drunk drivers can't drive on public roads.

This legislation will save lives, court, law enforcement, and prison costs. It will also make us safer.

---

Yes it is.

It's no different than a government agent standing at your car each time, and giving you a sobriety test without probable cause. Except its not a person, its a device, mandated by the government.

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

It's not as simple as just not getting drunk and driving. These systems have to be calibrated on a regular basis. So not only will it cost more to buy a vehicle, it will also cost more to maintain it. This will affect everyone in a bad way, but especially low income families.

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

---

I respectfully disagree.

You are not being searched. Your car simply won't start if you are drunk and trying to drive. You won't be charged with a crime and you can just call an Uber, which you should have done to begin with.

To get on an airplane, you are searched because you may pose a public threat. Nobody cares about that or throws up 4th Amendment challenges at the TSA -- and that is way more intrusive than ensuring drunk drivers can't drive on public roads.

This legislation will save lives, court, law enforcement, and prison costs. It will also make us safer.

---

Not all of us are willing to continue to give up freedoms for the sake of the government making us safer.