The EU’s New Car Laws Will Kill People – Thank The Lord We’re Leaving, Well, Maybe We Are

From our Special Correspondent, Lincoln Swann:

More invasive and expensive legislation from the EU

All new cars to be fitted with speed control and breathalysers from 2022

This is pretty much a model for what the EU does, centralises control and makes life harder and more expensive for its citizens whilst sounding virtuous.

EU legislation passed Tues 26 March 2019 calls for new cars from 2022 to be fitted with breathalysers to prevent drink driving. Also required are speed monitoring and warning devices which review road signs and road databases and warn when speed limits are exceeded.

Rather than making the law and giving citizens individual responsibility for their actions the EU would prefer to make it impossible to break the law.

Car breathalysers – the average motorist makes 10 journeys a week, stopping to puff every time will add 30 seconds, so the average driver will be puffing away for 4 ½ hours a year. The act of puffing would use up 200 complete lifetimes worth of UK driver time every year.

About 150 people are killed in the UK each year where drunk driving was a factor. So the new laws will use up 200 lifetimes of time a year to save some proportion of 150 already part used lives.

Politics being the art of trading lives, this is very bad politics. Or to put it another way – EU new law adding breathalysers to cars likely to cost over 100 UK lives a year.

It will also cost new car buyers roughly £1bn a year, so it’s expensive. The poor will be hit disproportionately more than the rich, as imposed fixed costs do. Like a lot of EU rules it will favour large car manufacturers over smaller ones or new entrants. It also opens up the thought that the EU will have a track of where every car has been. Big brother will be watching you. Classic EU stuff really.

13
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
timworstallDavidsbMatt RyanDodgy GeezerThe Mole Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Frank Bukowski
Guest
Frank Bukowski

Haven’t the Government already said they’re going to implement this BS even after we leave? But when we leave (if we leave) I suppose we’ll be voting out this sorry excuse for a government and will have the option to replace them with one that better represents the views of ordinary people.

The Mole
Guest
The Mole

Are there any political parties that better represent the views of ordinary people?

Matt Ryan
Guest
Matt Ryan

Monster Raving Loony Party makes more sense than those in the Commons.

TD
Guest
TD

Would this bolster the used car market?

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

2021 models will be popular.

Dodgy Geezer
Guest
Dodgy Geezer

Making machines more complex increases the chance of dangerous failure or unforeseen consequences.

The recent 737 crashes appear to be due to a redesign making the aircraft marginally less stable in pitch. So an additional pitch control mechanism was added to push the nose down if the plane looked as if it were about to stall. Failures of this mechanism has resulted in two aircraft nosing directly into the ground.

Still, at least they didn’t stall.

The Mole
Guest
The Mole

Its going to be interesting how this interacts with disability rights and health and safety.

People with lung conditions may struggle to do the breathalyser so often, and there are multiple medical conditions that can result in false positives on breathalysers (particularly given these aren’t going to be evidence grade machines).

I’m also confused about how hygienic these breathalyzers will be and what the health risks of using them (particularly if it is a hire car).

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Get the engine running before you take a snort?

Get the passenger to do it?

Carry a bag of fresh air?

Matt
Guest
Matt

As the truck with a brake failure rear-ends you, you can die safe in the knowledge that at least you didn’t exceed the speed limit in order to get out of its way.

Dodgy Geezer
Guest
Dodgy Geezer

More likely that you would want to exceed the speed limit for safety during an overtaking manoeuvre – but we get the idea….

Actually, the result of being speed-limited to 70 will probably be huge tail-backs on most roads, as drivers will simply not be able to pass safely with a 5mph difference between the two cars. Never mind, eh? At least that will increase pollution and give some more work for the activists…

Davidsb
Guest
Davidsb

It used to be the case (and possibly still is) that a stone-cold driver mowing down an alcohol-impaired pedestrian was classed as a drink-related road death.

Hmmmmm…

Davidsb
Guest
Davidsb

Anyone want to bet that (1) the GPS-related elements of this will be provided solely via the Galileo system, and (2) a recurring fee will be required from the owner of each vehicle connected to the system, and (3) a road-pricing fee will be payable for each journey undertaken, and finally (4) EU bureaucrats and their families will be exempt for life from all aspects of the new law.

Or am I being too cynical?

timworstall
Guest
timworstall

The question I ask myself concerning the EU is always “Am I being cynical enough?”