I was reading this morning that the new Mavericks might be getting this
-
Maverick Reservation Tracker: Add Yours Here!
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on capitol hill....
Joined
·
71 Posts
....Great...
I don't drive if I drink anything, but this is just another nanny system in a vehicle I am paying for... nope.... don't want it.
I don't drive if I drink anything, but this is just another nanny system in a vehicle I am paying for... nope.... don't want it.
Joined
·
220 Posts
The alcohol monitors are actually the pork that’s in the bill .
Right.
But it's meaningless unless it's actually put into law. And even then the automakers would be given time to implement the new law. Maverick won't have it.... For now.
Joined
·
61 Posts
The Supreme Court will/would have a say in this if it ever sees the light of day. Maybe they should put it on the charging stations so nobody electrocutes themselves trying to charge the electric vehicles we all will have to have.
Joined
·
6 Posts
I guess doesn't work for marijuana
Joined
·
67 Posts
so much for the built-in bottle opener
I wonder how much it will cost to calibrate to legal standards every six months and who will pocket the fees?
I’ld be careful believe everything I read. The infrastructure bill is a bi-partisan bill and find it hard to believe the Rep. wouldn’t be be jumping up and down.
A little commonsense goes a long way.
Just saying.
A little commonsense goes a long way.
Just saying.
Joined
·
84 Posts
First off, you won't find anyone more anti alcohol than I am ! HATE that stupid drug. However, distracted driving has overtaken DUI's for the numbers of accidents caused. Seems to me they could develop something that won't let you drive with a phone in your hand, or up to the side of your head ? And understand, that I don't give a $#$% what the next person does (IE, helmets, seatbelts, etc) as long as it does not direct affect me. But DUI or distracted driving could totally affect me or my friends and family !
Joined
·
214 Posts
yeah….like who still drinks?….Weed much better way to go.
Joined
·
84 Posts
Ha
Absolutely ! I almost said so, in my original post.... but was afraid of getting myself started lol I am FOR weed, as much as I'm against alcohol But now the mods will probably remove this....
Joined
·
84 Posts
Not going to say their are not a very few random cases, where someone has some seriously detrimental effects on their coordination, from weed, or maybe OD'd on edibles (that could do it for sure... I know !
lol) but generally speaking, weed has never been a big problem with driving, and it should not be enforced as if it has been.
Joined
·
137 Posts
I don’t care what you drink, smoke, ingest, etc. for your own safety and the safety of others please don’t drive during or right afterward though. Once they legalized weed in California we’d get people driving in hotboxes and smoking their joints while driving way too often. As if they think a cop won’t pull them over or that it’s safe.
Joined
·
84 Posts
They did that before it was legal, and very rarely was that a problem.
Joined
·
1 Posts
There is no mandate for a breathalyzer in the bill. Section 24220 requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule requiring automakers to include passive monitoring system which can detect/predict impairment and prevent or limit the use of the automobile. Subaru's DriverFocus is likely what lawmakers have in mind. Basically a camera that watches the driver and an algorithm to determine if the driver is distracted or impaired.
Will this rule actually happen even if it's passed in the bill? I'm not sure. The bill requires the Secretary to issue such a rule within 3 years of the bill's passage, but allows for up to a 3 year extension. It also says that manufacturers must be given 2-3 years to comply after the rule is issued. Already we're looking at potentially 9 years before such a rule would actually make it to market. And to top it off, the bill says that if the Secretary still hasn't issued the rule after 10 years, they just need to submit a report to Congress explaining why not.
That being said, I think this section will survive passage of the bill and the rule will like come to fruition--though I'd bet on the later side timing-wise. Auto manufacturers are clearly already moving in this direction and have nothing to lose from the rule. All costs will be passed to the consumer and it won't impact sales since the price and feature is represented across all vehicles.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it.
Will this rule actually happen even if it's passed in the bill? I'm not sure. The bill requires the Secretary to issue such a rule within 3 years of the bill's passage, but allows for up to a 3 year extension. It also says that manufacturers must be given 2-3 years to comply after the rule is issued. Already we're looking at potentially 9 years before such a rule would actually make it to market. And to top it off, the bill says that if the Secretary still hasn't issued the rule after 10 years, they just need to submit a report to Congress explaining why not.
That being said, I think this section will survive passage of the bill and the rule will like come to fruition--though I'd bet on the later side timing-wise. Auto manufacturers are clearly already moving in this direction and have nothing to lose from the rule. All costs will be passed to the consumer and it won't impact sales since the price and feature is represented across all vehicles.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!