There are legal speed limits. Drivers routinely ignore them. EU plans a system that automatically _alerts_ drivers when when they are exceeding the speed limit (something that essentially all sat nav do).
How dare they be so evil? Jeez.
How dare they be so evil? Jeez.
Mandatory breathalyzer is much more stupid.
What about for convicted drunk drivers?
Would these measures be more acceptable for people who have already proven themselves untrustworthy?
You are unhappy with the new law. I'm asking if you would find a targeted law more reasonable.
The suspension as punishment, the breathalyser as prevention of future incidents.
Yes that doesn't address the 'depending on your license' angle. but I'm not sure that should be a valid defence anyway?
I don't think life-long sentences is OK for all but most severe crimes. And a single DUI, especially on lower end of punishable spectrum, is not such.
Similar things are used. For example, in the UK some insurance companies make an offer which depends on the driver installing a speed tracker and not violating the limit.
The argument "why hasn't it been done yet" is quite weak. It takes time for things to be put into law, and the relevance of this kind of intervention increases with the number of drivers on the road.
Whenever someone claims the law can't actually change people's behaviour for the better, I instantly think of the UK's plastic bag charge law in 2015, which quickly cut usage by 86%.