Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Don’t you think this would lower even more the number of drunk ones you have to avoid?
People who want to break the law are going to break the law.
All you would do is create a market for someone to stand outside the bar and blow into tubes for people. Or, a market for balloons that could simulate a blow... or whatever.
Drug laws have not reduced the amount of drug use and piss-testing hasn't guaranteed that the bus driver isn't high. All it has done is create a market for bypassing the instituted tests.
Back to the point, though, what you're talking about would have to be enacted at the federal level. There's no way a locality could force the auto manufacturers to install such an item. Please provide for me source of the legislative authority for the federal government to enact such a policy. Remember, the 9th and 10th amendment as you search.
Re: Clothing...I'm required by local and state laws to cover specific parts of my body. There is no federal law dictating decency (that I'm aware of). I have no problem with localities mandating specific socially accepted norms via legislation. However, there is no law requiring that I wear clothing on my own property so long as it can be reasonably assumed that I would not be seen by the casual passer-by. That's how nudist camps work. I have no problem with nudists. I have no problem (personally) with nudity. Just as I have no problem with the Christian community that's being formed in Florida (the name of the town/city escapes me at the moment,) which requires all citizens to follow certain accepted Christian norms, I would have no problem with a town passing clothing optional or even nudity-required laws.
Seat belt use laws are state laws. The federal government, however, mandates the installation of seat belts in all cars manufactured after 1964. Let the market decide.
Now, if you'd like to install these devices in the cars and allow people to decide whether they want to blow first, I have no problem with that. That way, if/when you get pulled over/in an accident, you could say, "Look, officer. I blew clean to start my car." thereby removing any doubt as to one's sobriety.
That pretty much defeats the whole point; and is really not a bright idea. After the accident, the victims are already dead or injured. If you aren't drunk; you'd have no reason to argue sobriety in the first place. If you ARE; you shouldn't have been able to start the car and get it on the road; blowing clean or not - that's what the current law is supposed to prevent.
Laws are not capable of preventing behavior. Which, I suppose, is the crux of your argument.
There IS, however a device that can sense alcohol, and keep a car from being started. To not use such a technology in an effort to save lives and money is paramount to negligence on part of lawmakers. It is not an undue burden on society or an individual, and attempts nothing further than enforcing current law.
Hmm. Nope. Felons can't have guns period.
Such a device presumes guilt (intoxication) until the user proves that they're sober.
I suspect that if such a device were OEM, and legislation were passed to require one to activate the device via one's own breath before the vehicle could be started, then they'd also pass legislation that would make it illegal to disable said device. If that's the case, then they will have infringed on my right to do with my property (the automobile) what I please while doing so out of others' harms way. I.e., on my own property.
Whew... thank God. I was afraid that there were felons out there who had acquired guns despite the laws and systems in place making it impossible for them to acquire one.
On my property, or on public roads?
I think we can all agree that operating an automobile on your private property is nobody's business but your own, as long as you're not harming anyone.
I figured it'd fizzle quick, lol.
If the system can be disabled as you suggest, all you've done is increased the number of laws broken by the drunk driver. There are already laws prohibiting operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 (in most states). If a driver suspects that he may not be able to start the car by blowing into the tube because he has had some drinks, and he bypasses the system to start the car - which many people would do - then the device is useless other than as a tool for an officer to use in order to determine sobriety. And, if a driver has bypassed the system to start the car, and there is a subsequent accident, is he presumed intoxicated because he didn't blow to start the car? I think I could probably argue 5th amendment infringement there.
Total Members: 4939