Featured Letter: No thanks on breathalyzers

To the editor:

In reply to your editorial in the Jan. 22 issue regarding the mandated installation of breath sensors in order to start the engine on future produced cars. In the ’70s, I forget the year, GM installed an interlock system to prevent starting the engine until the seat belts of front passengers were latched. It seemed like a good idea at the time. After all, it’s true that seat belts save lives. They even provided an override button switch under the hood in case the system failed for some reason.

GM may have thought this safety feature would be desirable, but the owners that year who bought, and those who were thinking of buying, had other opinions. The complaints and outcry to GM was horrendous — so much so, that GM dropped the device on the next model year.

The solution in your editorial falls under a similar realm of thinking.

I don’t have the solution to this complex social problem, but in my view the breath interlock fix is not the answer that the 99 percent of us who drive sober are looking for on our next car.

Floyd Vail, Mattituck