You're full of crapola. There has not been one single post saying any such thing.
We have to give the boy a break as nobody else here agrees with him so he has to skip so many valid posts to answer just a few.
He disgusts me.
But it is a lie as you go site for him.
Read between the lines. When you are arguing for the right not to have an alcohol interlock in your car, you're arguing for the right to drive drunk.
The cost shouldn't be a factor. While Breathalyzer based systems would cost about $1000, systems that measure BAC through the skin would be about $100. I've already said that this is a cheap insurance policy. It's passive and non-invasive.
And it's not an unreasonable search if the results aren't provided to law enforcement.
The margin of error on these machines is ±0.02% BAC -- so they're going to have to set them for 0.10% BAC anyway. Otherwise, people who are legal to drive are going to be prevented from driving, and there are going to be lawsuits.
Look at it from a car manufacturer's point of view. The technology is available, they're refusing to put it in the cars, and somebody gets kileld by a drunk driver who's driving one of their cars. Then the mother of the victim sues the manufacturer, because that's where the deep pockets are. The argument is that seince the technology was available, the manufacturer was negligent for not using it.
"That evil manufacturer just wanted to save a few bucks and now my baby is dead!" Picture a Cindy Sheehan look-alike. Cue the violin music.
Nobody needs that. It's going to cost jobs. Because the technology is available, it will have to be used.
He’s also totally wrong. In many states you can be convicted of drunk driving if you are in the car and have the keys. They car doesn’t have to be turned on and it doesn’t have to be in motion.
So by sitting in the car and blowing a .08 or greater you are proving your guilt.