I was once hit by a drunk driver and I had the following idea...... Okay so you know those things that they install in people's cars if they get enough DUIs?? They go in the ignition and if you have a BAC higher than the legal limit to drive the car won't start. Why don't they put those in every vehicle??? This is where the criticism came in. Apparently the trouble people have with this is that it will supposedly boost the cost of vehicles because this is an expensive piece of equipment. My solution was for them to take out the tvs, DVD players, "handless" cell phone equipment (because talking on the phone is STILL talking on the phone whether you have both hands free to swerve around the person that suddenly stopped in front of you or not.) and after all of those needless and excessive distractions are gone then we put in the anti- drunk driving thingies. See, I killed two birds with one stone. Now drunk driving has been virtually, if not completely, eliminated AND all of the other crap we don't need in vehicles is gone (tv's, phones, etc.) Now I realize that here on AB I have sort of a reputation for being a "quick fix" kinda guy. By that I mean I am the one running around saying "Let's outlaw all handguns" and things of that nature. Despite the fact that I would be lying if I didn't admit most of my arguments get shot down fairly quickly, I think I am right on this one. Why do people disagree with what I just said above???? Is it because they don't want to give up luxeries like tv?? If it is then they can keep the tvs in and have the anti-drunk driving systems in anyway. And if they complain about the rise in cost then I will be inclined to reply "How much is too much to prevent a drunk driving fatality??" Plus you don't have to be drunk to be hit by a drunk driver. So even if YOU don't need one someone else probably does and since the law doesn't seem to use these things before the 3rd or 4th DUI (at least in my state) then maybe it is time auto manufacturers did something.

It's an expensive fix (you have to pay for regular upkeep and some monitoring of the thing as well) for a problem that the vast majority of drivers do not have.

I would agree, except most people do NOT drink and drive. Now, I can see anyone CAUGHT driving drunk (or even a bit tipsy) should be REQUIRED to install one in ALL of their vehicles and have to use them from then on. If they sell the car, it must move with them. (Problem... What if they might be driving a parent's car... A sibling's, etc.... NOT just vehicles in their household? And what about RENTAL vehicles?)

The thought is in the right place but the big problems I see are these. Everyone is supposed to pay for a problem that not everybody has. Another problem is keeping the systems working. In your world can you imagian how quickly a black market to disable these systems would be established? Now you have a world where only people with lots of money or old cars can drive drunk. There are much better, cheaper, ways to combat DUI. In other countrys 1 DUI = Never drive again these places have much less trouble then in America where you get 3 + strikes. Thanks for the idea, ++++++