Topic: Should blowing clean be mandatory? (Read 15708 times)

12AX7 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:20:53 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 04, 2009, 10:39:02 AM

Actually, I still question the effectiveness of this.

While it might actually dissuade a few drunk drivers, the habitual offenders (at least anecdotally in my state) tend to be idiots with 10 or 12 DWI offenses under their belts, don't even have a driver's license anymore at all, and keep offending.

While I agree with the notion of interlocks in concept (and while an inconvenience I wouldn't want on my vehicle, I consider driving to be a privilege, so as long as it's evenly applied, I don't consider them to be a violation of individual rights), I don't think they're practical, nor would blanket use of them be very effective in the long run at significantly reducing alcohol related injuries and fatalities on our roads and highways.

I think that, as Biz pointed out with gun laws, law-abiding citizens who only drive sober already would simply be annoyed and inconvenienced by such an interlock, and those who habitually drive drunk -- arguably the ones who are the most dangerous ones out there to begin with -- would simply disable, bypass, or otherwise circumvent such interlocks and continue to offend.

While I do see reducing some of the "casual" offenders being a realistic possibility, I don't see that as a big enough benefit to justify the cumbersome implementation of something like this across the board.

Quote from: 12AX7 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.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #51 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:24:08 AM »

Oh I agree.... to a point. I don't think there is a way it could be written so that I would agree with it.

12AX7 · « **Reply #52 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:42:46 AM »

I'm agreeing with your general premise that it'd be a big, cumbersome, fscked nightmare; and as such, would be in reality undoable. Two or three cats hashing it out could make it work (ie.; in here); but that aint what our gubmint's famous for. To have it written to work like I'm "advocating" (for lack of a better term) would be next to impossible once more than three heads got on it. The incentive package would never get out of the Fed due to the different interests; there's no guarantee that the states would take the money, and if not; then what?
Still, in my head; I don't (wouldn't) have a problem with it in principle.

All_Knowing_Ham · « **Reply #53 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:45:05 AM »

I see you.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #54 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:47:41 AM »

mryellow · « **Reply #55 on:** August 04, 2009, 12:08:21 PM »

I hail from the land of rules and regulations... and I say enough is enough. I would immediately have hygenic concerns about such a device and I think it would be cumbersome, but apart from that: I never drink. Ever. So why should I be punished for the rest of my life by having such an awful mandatory device in my car? It's a bit like a copy protection: you harm the good people, the bad ones will consider it a fun challenge to bypass the system. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

I know I don't offer a real solution to the problem either, but I am so fed up with easy fixes that do not solve the real issue but address merely some of its concequences. Lawmakers in my country do this all freaking day and if any one person would even know all the rules, his head would pop clear off. Most of them shouldn't even need to be a rule, they are so obvious they could all be swept under the basic rule "don't be an irresponsible arsehole". It all boils down to this: take your own freaking responsibility. Teach people how to do that, give them a much broader framework of rules (without all the braindead detailed little rules) and train people from a very young age by exposing them to various scenarios, teaching them how to work responsibly within the framework laid down. Not rules, but insight, meaning, experience, actual working human braincells...

Such a device for offenders only, don't see that happening either. You could just swap cars any time. The least they could do if you get caught drunk driving (apart from prison time for manslaughter if you killed someone... obviously) is suspend your license for many, many years (which would seriously ruin your modern life). Up the stakes a little, enough maybe to finally kick-start those few remaining brain cells and grow the ^$#@ up.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #56 on:** August 04, 2009, 12:11:39 PM »

Well-said.

I'm actually opposed to driving while cell-phone-talking laws too. Why do we need them? It's already illegal to drive recklessly and run into things and endanger other drivers and pedestrians.

Studies have shown that a driver playing around with the stereo or talking to a passenger is JUST AS DISTRACTED as a driver talking on a cell phone... so why outlaw one behavior and not the others?

I'll tell you the one reason: politicians deemed that an "action" issue that was worth some level of political capital to them.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #57 on:** August 04, 2009, 02:54:33 PM »

alcohol isn't the only intoxicant. Submit blood before the car will start? But wait, people who may have a heart attack could be a threat to safety, so mandatory EKG and Echocardiogram to get the car to start. Oh and don't forget the epileptics. Perhaps someone has not been diagnosed yet. Mandatory EEGs. And then Xolik's obesity sensor. After all, obesity leads to diabetes, which can lead to blindness. Then mandatory hearing, vision, reflex, vestibular, response time, (insert any conceivable metric here). All in the name of safety. Then you have the bypass problem. Hacking DeCSS anyone. Barry Bonds et al using new generation roids to avoid detection. The innovators will develop other intoxicants, ways to beat the tests. Not to mention test cheats--designated blowers/bleeders/response time, etc. Meanwhile the bureauocracy grows exponentially to combat all these safety issues, and then that asshole who isn't paying attention not due to anything aforementioned rams into your car anyway.

I vote in the personal liberty camp based on not just reason, but also on cost basis. First there would be bureaucratic costs. Then there would be the OEMs who need to make their profit, then the end manufacturers, then the distribution channel, etc. Then the cost to society of having those in accidents that should have happened not die. Our population increases, the people who should have died, reproduce. It just doesn't seem sustainable.

mryellow · « **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:43:07 AM »

Harsh as it may sound, I agree with you pbsaurus. We've come a long way, but there's a limit to how far one should go to prevent basic human evolution

I also agree with you Demo. We are not all equal, the biggest challenge to all drivers is not how to drive but how to spot and avoid all those idiots who cannot -while completely undistracted- keep their car properly on the road and deal with traffic. Therefore if you outlaw all distractions (including radio, phones, passengers, GPS) you will still have 90% of all accidents happening.

Same thing with seatbelts. I wear them religiously because I value the safety it provides me. They should be strongly recommended, but in the end, why is there a law that makes it mandatory to wear them? Who am I to stop someone from crashing through the windshield if they so desire to take that risk? Drugs too, why are there laws that prevent you from hurting yourself? As long as you don't hurt anyone else, please help evolution along

xolik · « **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:45:32 AM »

You guys are missing an important question: WHO SMOTE THE HAM?

Quote from: Demosthenes on August 04, 2009, 12:11:39 PM

Well-said.

I'm actually opposed to driving while cell-phone-talking laws too. Why do we need them? It's already illegal to drive recklessly and run into things and endanger other drivers and pedestrians.

Studies have shown that a driver playing around with the stereo or talking to a passenger is JUST AS DISTRACTED as a driver talking on a cell phone... so why outlaw one behavior and not the others?

I'll tell you the one reason: politicians deemed that an "action" issue that was worth some level of political capital to them.

"We need money. How can we do it? Let's see, what's something that people like to do, is relatively safe, but can be a good boogeyman? Especially if we can toss in a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" as well? Cell phones are popular...driving is popular...THAT'S IT! We'll make it illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving! Hookers and blow for everybody!"

Demosthenes · « **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:02:39 PM »

Xolik must have paid close attention in civics class. He just described how most laws get made.

skybucket · « **Reply #61 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:35:25 AM »

Quote from: Detta 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?

I was going to ask the same thing.

xolik · « **Reply #62 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:36:59 AM »

Quote

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?

Who always winds up paying for governments fuck-ups?

All_Knowing_Ham · « **Reply #63 on:** August 07, 2009, 11:46:41 AM »

Quote from: xolik on August 06, 2009, 09:36:59 AM

Who always winds up paying for governments fuck-ups?

I see you.

xolik · « **Reply #64 on:** August 07, 2009, 11:50:35 AM »

This thread has been blessed by the presence of the All Knowing Ham.

mryellow · « **Reply #65 on:** August 08, 2009, 10:04:35 AM »

Is he related to the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #66 on:** August 10, 2009, 09:36:18 AM »

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #67 on:** August 19, 2009, 09:32:47 PM »

this idea = worse than drm

my car works for me.

everyone would disable it anyway.

hackhelios · « **Reply #68 on:** August 25, 2009, 02:21:53 PM »

Agreed--make the technology more common and people will just become more adept at getting around it. The sober drivers who won't try to subvert the system will be paying for it, both in time wasted and tax dollars spent.

Nothing wrong with regulation where it's needed, but punishing everyone for the sins of a few is universally a bad idea (source: Full Metal Jacket, 1987).

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Should blowing clean be mandatory? (Read 15708 times)

12AX7

12AX7

skybucket