No and no. The car industry has learned that they can increase profits by making legislators mandate things in the name of safety and security. See tire pressure monitoring for example.
I don't appreciate being forced to pay for a feature I don't need. The modern car is FULL of such features, and it's caused the price to skyrocket. The median price for a new car in 1968, adjusted for inflation, was roughly $25,000. Pre-Covid, the median price was something like $36,000. All while wages stagnate or fall accounting for inflation. Stop driving up the price with all this stupid unnecessary crap!
Can a seatbelt strand you on the side of the road in the middle of the night? Can a seatbelt turn off your car in the winter? Can a seatbelt collect private data from you? Can a seatbelt record everything you do?
IIRC it was a cheaper option of supplemental restraint system that the driver didn't control as a phase in period before airbags became the only acceptable SRS.
I suppose as long as the built in breathalyser merely makes a loud beeping noise the whole time you're driving if your over the limit, this would be fine.
Is it user hostile to prevent the user from killing someone? I've seen a kid sentenced to jail for DUI driving and killing people. I doubt the car was acting in his best interest when it let him do that.
Is it user hostile to prevent the user from speeding? From parking in front of a fire hydrant? From driving to an illegal gathering? All of those can result in jail and death (including the last one, as those protest epidemic studies can attest to).
How about driving without a license, or past curfew?
Any action contrary to the user's wishes is user hostile. You are welcome to give inanimate objects (and those who control them) power over you, but don't drag the rest of us into your utopia of begging our cars and appliances for permission.
Ah but I'm committing the slippery slope fallacy. I'm sure that unlike all the other surveillance state creep, this particular genie, once out of the bottle, won't spread.
If you define anything against the user's wishes as user hostile I don't know why you are using that term. If you had said "I don't like this technology because it operates against the drunk driver's wishes and technology should not do that." then at least your position would be clear.
If you need a poorly defined buzzword like "user hostile" to make your objection sound more convincing, maybe it wasn't so great.
I just looked up the definition of user hostile and it doesn't seem to matcb your usage, either.
