3 ms·
I'll flip the question: Drunk driving is the leading cause of vehicular deaths. The government could require manufacturers include an breathalyzer in all cars
by 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I'll flip the question:
Drunk driving is the leading cause of vehicular deaths.
The government could require manufacturers include an breathalyzer in all cars, and make it so cars don't start unless you use that. Unrestrained occupants are one of the other leading causes. Again, we could make cars not start unless you buckle up.
If the reason for invading our privacy would be to save our lives, why not go where it actually matters and actually avoid people breaking the law instead of enforcement.
Why go with a system that extends police tracking to all public areas while minimizing the actual lives saved?
- stefan_ 7y agoI think breathalyzers would be great, but I believe the reliability isn't at all there. Seatbelts are only a protective devices once you are already in a crash, not their root cause. Modern cars will also already incessantly beep to you, and people stupid enough to buy a defeat device for them might as well fly out the windshield for all I care, their behavior isn't likely to cause much harm for others. But I'm not at all opposed. I'm happy to do away with speed cams if we can simply have modern cars enforce the speed limits they already know about.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y agoI'm much more in favor of infringing on privacy in a way to prevent law breaking than enforcement. My point is: the current system of enforcement is pretty authoritarian. And many of us take issue with that. Especially since the stated motives of such authoritarians don't hold too much water when looked at thoroughly (as I'm trying to point out with this example of enforcement vs prevention)