Of course no one wants to do this. No one wants to not be able to drive their car because an ignition lock circuit failed and now won't unlock. And car electronics fail constantly as it is, no need to add more failure states that lead to a vehicle becoming unusable.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin [1]
I don't need to rationalize technical reasons for believing this. Driving drunk is already illegal; the over-prevalence of it is an enforcement and sentencing issue. The same could be said for many several other driving and personal safety issues.
I will outright state that given the choice between my expected delta mortality rate due to driving in southern CA with vs. without a speed-governed, breathalyzer equipped, government regulated mandated vehicle law - I'd take the risk as is. 100%, every time. Giving the government or other large bureaucracy this level of control over anything has a much larger negative side. Yes! I am willing to die for liberty. Even more willing to have a tiny bit higher chance of getting killed on the road for liberty.
The rates of failure of those is tiny. So tiny that I don't think it's a real reason. I think that people who say that's the risk they don't want to take actually just don't like having to take safety measures, but if they say that out loud they realise how ridiculous they sound so they come up with something like that instead.
