Every time something like this pops up, I’m reminded of a line from a silly book I read as a kid:
“When technology advances, the technology to outsmart it advances too.”
The people making these regulations don’t understand car people. That cute little mandatory device will be defeated, and a workaround will be sold, within the first year. The same thing happened with diesel trucks - EPA mandated emissions controls were built in the sloppiest possible fashion by engine manufacturers, and when these expensive trucks started needing thousands of dollars of work with fewer than 100,000 miles, people started disabling the emissions controls.
The same thing will happen with this regulation. It will be implemented in the cheapest, most failure prone way possible to save Ford or whoever $5 per unit. Drivers will start having problems with their whiz-bang fancy electronic DUI detector bricking their car, and boom, now there’s a market for disabling or removing the devices.
Also, just to attract more downvotes - there doesn’t seem to be any similar regulation being pushed for motorcycles. Consider a Goldwing instead of an Accord?
A motorcycle has a higher chance of killing its rider rather than bystanders, when compared to cars.
I still won’t want to be hit by one though. I’ve been hit by a cyclist and that hurt enough.
Of course, yes. I’m just explaining why there’s more political motivation to not be hit by a car than a motorcycle.
Dude, 13000 deaths are approximately 28% of the total traffic death toll for 2021. Even if I take the data for 2014, with the all-time low of 1.17 fatalities per 100m mi driven, that 28% is more than the 0.12 total fatalities in Germany (1.9 per bn km, 2018). Maybe the government could start fixing driver’s ed and make sure vehicles are actually road safe.
