Topic: Should blowing clean be mandatory? (Read 15713 times)

12AX7 · « **on:** August 03, 2009, 02:52:20 PM »

Haha, not that. I'm talking about alcohol sensing automobile ignitions. Should they be OEM? Or should they remain solely a requirement for DUI offenders?
I personally don't see a problem with them being OEM. There are already certain requirements to move a vehicle down the road; one more wouldn't be groundbreaking. You have to have the keys (normally), you have to have a license and insurance proof with you, you have no choice in airbags, and seatbelts in some cars are now "on" you when you get in and close the door; in addition to being mandatory anyway. To have to blow into a tube and then turn the key isn't much to ask, ya think?
What do ya think?

Min · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:12:37 PM »

Who would be in charge of installing and maintaining the device? The car manufacturer, the government? I mean, the thing breaks and you can't get to work, who pays for that to get fixed?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:24:29 PM »

Worse yet, imagine the problems involved with having the car serviced. If it's easy enough to disable so that mechanics can easily work on the car without having to blow every time they start it, it's easy enough to disable for lots of average folks to disable.

If it's too difficult to disable for mechanics to easily work on the car, what's that going to do to basic repair costs for vehicles?

12AX7 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:29:36 PM »

I'm guessing the same way you'd get your key and fob if you lost them; or since it's based on law, the same way you'd get your license if you lost it. OEM means the installation would happen at the factory; 'maintaining' it would be up to you - the same as maintaining the rest of the automobile. That's not an enormous task to ask. You're not an electrician, but you can change the headlight out or take it to someone who can and get it fixed, right? Because if you don't; you get a ticket. Same scheme would apply, I would think.
I wouldn't advocate them being retrofitted on existing cars; if that's what you're getting at. Only new ones coming off the line. The same scheme that swapped all cars over to unleaded gasoline would apply there. They didn't retrofit older cars; they just quit making the gas tank opening where it wouldn't fit he pumps on Regular (leaded) on all new cars. It was an added expense also, at the time, but was included in the total price of the new car. Now; there is no regular (leaded); thus everyone now uses unleaded, and its not a 'cost' in manufacturing anymore.

Wunderkind · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:35:08 PM »

I think it would annoy me. Especially if it decided not to fuction or fuction properly and I was in a hurry. I'd probably find a way to take the thing out before it'd be in my car long enough to do any good.

12AX7 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 03, 2009, 03:24:29 PM

Worse yet, imagine the problems involved with having the car serviced. If it's easy enough to disable so that mechanics can easily work on the car without having to blow every time they start it, it's easy enough to disable for lots of average folks to disable.

If it's too difficult to disable for mechanics to easily work on the car, what's that going to do to basic repair costs for vehicles?

The same way it's easy to start a car without keys? I don't think that would really be a problem. If someone is found to have one disconnected; that would be a criminal offense;as would driving drunk. The difference is this would most likely prompt people who are over limit to call a cab, instead of trying to disable the device; especially if they can't get to it. And there are many places on a vehicle that it's very difficult to get to for the average person; but no effort at all for a mechanic.
That would be a much preferable outcome than him/her being able to just stick a key in and turn it; and take away your family forever. Just sayin.

12AX7 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:37:50 PM »

Quote from: Wunderkind on August 03, 2009, 03:35:08 PM

I think it would annoy me. Especially if it decided not to fuction or fuction properly and I was in a hurry. I'd probably find a way to take the thing out before it'd be in my car long enough to do any good.

That's where the design people are supposed to excel. Obviously, in most cars these days, they seem to have been absent. The point is it would be designed into the car; it (shouldnt) be an intrusion; much like sticking a key in and turning it. In fact; THAT would be more effort required than blowing.

Wunderkind · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:42:14 PM »

Yes but if the starter malfunctions when you turn the key, you can't just take the mechanism off and still drive the car. You might be surpised how fast a good ol' North Carolina girl like myself can take something out of a car. Criminal offense or not. A steering column has come apart because I lost my key once. I boosted my own car. I was in a hurry.

If it pissed me off once... it'd be gone.

12AX7 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:50:16 PM »

lol. I've done the same thing. I lost my keys on a construction site, and didn't realize it until I got back to the shop where my car was; about 120 miles from the job site. We busted open the steering column and snatched out the whole key block. I carried a homemade SlimJim (illegal) with me; tucked under the front bumper, to unlock the doors. The I used the screwdriver laying on the seat to start it. I actually really liked not having to fool with the keys.
At any rate; that wouldn't be an issue ayway. Take it off and GET CAUGHT; you get charged.
Worse; if the insurance bullshit gets involved; you're likely to become uninsurable. Not that that would stop you from starting the car, lol.

Wunderkind · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:54:15 PM »

It still seems like one big annoyance for those of us who don't drink and get into the driver's seats of vehicles period.... ever. I can see it now:

I need to get to work and this damn thing is not working right!

Yeah, that would annoy the devil out of me.

I don't know, maybe I'm just whiney at the moment, but it seems like just one more thing to get in my way and one more thing the government can arrest me for.

sociald1077 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:54:42 PM »

Quote from: Wunderkind on August 03, 2009, 03:42:14 PM

Yes but if the starter malfunctions when you turn the key, you can't just take the mechanism off and still drive the car. You might be surpised how fast a good ol' North Carolina girl like myself can take something out of a car. Criminal offense or not. A steering column has come apart because I lost my key once. I boosted my own car. I was in a hurry.

If it pissed me off once... it'd be gone.

How old was the car?

Wunderkind · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:58:08 PM »

2004 Neon

12AX7 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Wunderkind on August 03, 2009, 03:54:15 PM

It still seems like one big annoyance for those of us who don't drink and get into the driver's seats of vehicles period.... ever.

I don't disagree. I don't drink (usually), either. But you're already paying for those people who DO drink then drive and have an accident. I'd rather that be put to a virtual stop and be a little inconvenienced. It's the same type of argument that used to come up about seat belts; before they were fashionable, lol. And motorcycle helmets.
The thing is; driving on the road is a priviledge, not a right; and safety (should) win. This seems to be a very effective solution to a problem that kills thousands of people indiscriminately; and doesn't seem to be an overbearing burden on society (at least not as much as having a family member mowed down by some plastered retard).

Wunderkind · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2009, 04:18:55 PM »

Neh, I still think its another excuse for the government to arrest people. Give me one more thing I have to do. And once again I'm saddled with something completely uneccessary because of someone else's irresponsibility (drunk driving). Yeah, I'm liking this less and less.

xolik · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2009, 05:13:30 PM »

I think there should be fat meters installed in cars. It takes a pinch out of your arm and thigh and if it says you're too fat, the car won't start and you'll have to walk, fatty.

12AX7 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2009, 07:11:58 PM »

Quote from: Wunderkind on August 03, 2009, 04:18:55 PM

And once again I'm saddled with something completely uneccessary because of someone else's irresponsibility (drunk driving).

Like the high insurance premiums you pay now.
The flip side of being uninsurable could be a substantial discount for having one; kinda like airbags and ABS. I'd bet if you were to analyze your actual cost due to other people's irresponsibility now; it'd be the majority of what you're paying in insurance.
Ideally, since the issue of drunk driving would be 'solved' (I realize it can't ever be totally solved, but this would put a big dent in it), insurance premiums would come down eventually.
(haha riiiiiight, I know. I said "ideally").
So far I can't see a downside bad enough to change my mind. A small inconvenience doesn't seem important enough weighed against a virtual stop to alcohol impaired drivers on the road. The damage they do and the cost incurred by society due to their bad decisions makes blowing in a tube to start the car seem almost trivial.

BizB · « **Reply #16 on:** August 03, 2009, 08:09:21 PM »

Regardless of such a device's ability to perform up to expectations, I believe that requiring such a device in all automobiles is an infringement upon my basic liberty. As such, I would fight it... if such a bill were introduced. You see, the government can only make laws as they relate to the operation of motor vehicles on public roads. I contend that plenty of motorized vehicle activity takes place on private property. As such, when operating on private property, I'm neither required to have a state issued driver's license, nor follow state imposed speed restrictions etc.

www.freetalklive.com << get some liberty mindedness

12AX7 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 03, 2009, 08:40:43 PM »

Then you could operate said vehicle without such a device on private property. If you take it on the road, however, it better be up to requirements or you get charged. This same argument was brought out to oppose seat belts and motorcycle helmets as well. It just doesn't fly. Driving (on the roads) is a granted priviledge; as such, you have restrictions. That's the way 'priviledges' work. Operating on your ( or any) private property is -as you said- not subject to any governmental restrictions. Feel free to get tanked and plow a tree. But when you pull out onto a road; you are now "in public"; and as such, you have restrictions to control behavior (to an extent) usually for safety reasons. Why would this be any different than seat belts or speed limits?

I'll check your link out; but if you were to get more "free" minded than me; the government would visit your terrorist ass. There are some things, though, that aren't really that much of a "freedom" thing that the savings (thousands upon thousands of people and billions of dollars) to society outweighs any claim to infringement.

12AX7 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 03, 2009, 08:49:14 PM »

I might also add that if such a bill were written; I would most likely end up opposing it as well; because I don't believe it would be written the way I think it should be. I think if current government took up the task; they would have it so fucked up it really would be a nightmare.

BizB · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:16:21 PM »

I also oppose seat belt and helmet laws.

BizB · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:24:39 PM »

Quote

There are some things, though, that aren't really that much of a "freedom" thing that the savings (thousands upon thousands of people and billions of dollars) to society outweighs any claim to infringement.

Money and lives are not a valid argument for infringing upon my right to liberty. If I decide to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, I assume the risk that every other driver on the road may be intoxicated, texting, or otherwise distracted. It is already illegal to drive while intoxicated and there are penalties in place for those who do it. Requiring one to prove that they are sober prior to operating a motor vehicle is akin to requiring someone to prove they have enough life jackets on a boat before they leave the dock.

If such a device were mandated, would you assume then that nobody on the road is drunk? I certainly wouldn't.

12AX7 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:25:57 PM »

Quote from: BizB on August 03, 2009, 09:16:21 PM

I also oppose seat belt and helmet laws.

What about clothes?

BizB · « **Reply #22 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:26:50 PM »

What about them?

12AX7 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:36:03 PM »

Quote from: BizB on August 03, 2009, 09:24:39 PM

Money and lives are not a valid argument for infringing upon my right to liberty.

Maybe if you kept yourself on private property; yes. But otherwise; no; they sure are a valid argument. To maintain a society, some liberties are indeed taken away. That is necessary to build and maintain a society of human beings. You have no inherent ‘need’ to hold your breath while starting a car; you are in fact already breathing. Direct it to the tube.

Quote from: BizB on August 03, 2009, 09:24:39 PM

If such a device were mandated, would you assume then that nobody on the road is drunk? I certainly wouldn't.

I NEVER assume anyone else on the road is even competent to shit; much less drive. This should be no excuse for one to slack off paying attention while driving. That’s your argument there, right? That suddenly now you have to pay attention to discern between sober drivers and drunk ones? Don’t you think this would lower even more the number of drunk ones you have to avoid?

12AX7 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2009, 09:37:48 PM »

Quote from: BizB on August 03, 2009, 09:26:50 PM

What about them?

You're opposed to them? You are required to wear them in public.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Should blowing clean be mandatory? (Read 15713 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7