I’m usually all for stricter laws governing who is capable of operating a motor vehicle, but a recent report in Time is painting a grim future, one where control of your car is completely out of your hands. According to the article, new legislation supported by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) will require DUI convicts in all 50 states to have an interlock system installed in their vehicle that would prevent them from driving under the influence. Intrigued? Hit the jump.

Granted, what the article asserts isn’t really all that outrageous, but it’s really only a short hop from “breathalyze convicted DUI offenders” to “breathalyze everyone” to “monitor who can drive, and when.” Paranoid? You might think so, but already some scary (and sometimes stupid) technology is making its way into cars everywhere. Ford offers a speed control system for young drivers, and several newer models now include a “black box” that allows the 5-0 to tell just who really was speeding. I’m of two minds: in some ways this technology does away with a lot of the BS we as a nation encounter every day on our freeways. But on the other I feel like it makes us less responsible and less skilled drivers.

In the specific case that Time was talking about, the mandatory installation of breathalyzers in DUI offenders’ vehicles sounds like a brilliant idea but I think a compromise needs to be made. Isn’t the whole point of a higher drinking age meant to prevent drunk drivers? If that’s the case, then lower the drinking age and use this new technology to properly target and alleviate the problem of drunk driving. I’ve argued for years that targeting legal adults and punishing them through legislation for crimes not committed based purely on statistics is unfair and unconstitutional. I think this technology can certainly make things right for everyone involved, but only if the compromise is made. Lowering the drinking age would free up valuable Police resources, saving tons of money and freeing up officers to do real law enforcement instead of standing around at DUI checkpoints. It would also put responsibility back in the hands of drivers. You either don’t drive drunk and enjoy the liberty of drinking at 18, as a legal adult, or you screw it up and have electronic nannies installed in your vehicle, since apparently you’re not capable of making adult decisions. A fair and balanced approach that targets offenders, and not bystanders. Sound off and leave a comment! [Source: Time]

It could be a sad day for Macho Man trucks in Virginia if the newly proposed bill gets passed that would put a ban on the now infamous Truck Nuts. Delegate Lionell Spruill wants to put an end to “anything on a car that resembles human genetalia.” Spruill says “It comes to a point where there are certain things you just can’t do. And putting testicles on the back of a truck is just too much. So I am trying to stop it.” All this can be blamed on an innocent little girl who probably asked “what are those daddy? where do babies come from? Why are they so big?”

Does this mean lowriders with exotic murals painted on the hoods will also be banned in Virginia? I hope this guy gets smacked across the face with some real ones to slap some sense into him. Makes me sleep great at night knowing that our tax dollars are being used properly.

[WKTR News]