The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: 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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
2004 Neon
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.freetalklive.com) << get some liberty mindedness
-
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.
-
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.
-
I also oppose seat belt and helmet laws.
-
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.
-
I also oppose seat belt and helmet laws.
What about clothes?
-
What about them?
-
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.
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?
-
What about them?
You're opposed to them? You are required to wear them in public.
-
Don’t you think this would lower even more the number of drunk ones you have to avoid?
No. I don't. 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.
-
People who want to break the law are going to break the law.
*Of course they are. Hence the idea of stopping their cars from starting.
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.
Capitalism at it's finest. Yay.
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.
This isn't aimed at reducing the amount of alcohol use/abuse; only to stop an alocohol-impaired person from ignition; which is what the curent law is already supposed to do. *See above.
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.
Why would it have to be a federal law?
See: http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage)
at how seat belts and seat belt laws (State laws) came about. There is no federal seat belt law. Why would this not work the same way?
From the link:
Federal
There is no federal seat belt law; such laws are left to the individual states. The U. S. Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, offers grant programs to states; in 2002, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico shared a $44.4 million grant (Maine and Wyoming declined to take any grant money). Safety and public awareness campaigns are also conducted by NHTSA. Probably the best known is the series of print and broadcast advertisements that feature Vince and Larry, the crash test dummies.
In 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which includes grant money for states to initiate new seat belt laws, traffic enforcement programs, and child passenger protection and training activities.
-
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.
Rightrightright; I was just pointing out the discrepancy there, at how it's fine to have to wear clothes; but not fine to have to wear a seat belt, etc. I don't really have an argument about clothes, per se.
-
Although I had nothing to add to the conversation (besides my opinion) I wanted to say that I appreciated reading the conversation.
-
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.
-
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.
That was my point in the previous post. The Fed "lures" the states into passing the law; the auto manufacturers will comply if they want to sell their product in each state and be in compliance with state law. The feds don't really have to have anything to do with it; other than the incentive money; which I'd have rather had spent on this than a federal takeover of the automobile industry (GM).
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 should'nt 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.
-
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.
Under your proposed basis of solution, how would you prevent distracted driving, which, in reality, is more dangerous - because it can happen to anyone, not just those who choose to drink before getting behind the wheel? I suspect that distracted driving or driving while fatigued is at least as common, if not more common, than drunk driving. There are laws against those things, too.
-
If there were such a device; I might be interested in it. There is not, currently, to keep people from being distracted, etc. 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.
-
Laws are not capable of preventing behavior. Which, I suppose, is the crux of your argument.
No, they are not; and no, it isn't. It has little to do with preventing behavior. It has everything to do with securing a deadly weapon from an intoxicated person. They can still behave as they please.
-
Oh... like the way that they keep guns away from convicted felons. Got it.
-
Hmm. Nope. Felons can't have guns period. You can certainly own as many vehicles as you like; even drive them on private property with no sensor.
-
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.
Such a device presumes guilt (intoxication) until the user proves that they're sober. That's the antithesis of our way of life.
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.
Hmm. Nope. Felons can't have guns period.
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.
-
Not to muddy the waters any further here, but I think this argument hinges on the outcome of a different (but related) argument: is driving an automobile a right or a privilege?
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, assuming that driving is a privilege, and that the application of any requirement to exercise said privilege is applied equally under the law, is an OEM sobriety-detection appliance a "presumption of guilt", any more than a behind-the-wheel road test requirement for licensure?
-
On my property, or on public roads?
-
Such a device presumes guilt (intoxication) until the user proves that they're sober.
It presumes nothing of the sort. Such a device presumes you intend to start the car; and is in place to be sure you can't if you are drunk. It doesn't presume guilt of anything.
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.
Like it's illegal to remove catalytic converters, illegal to drive on the road with no tag, illegal to drive on the road with bald tires, illegal to drive on the road with no headlights; all of which you can do on your own property legally. We already went over this. It's not that difficult a concept.
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.
You were? HAHA! Good for you.
So what was your point here? That because they can still get guns; we should just drop any efforts to stop it?
-
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 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.
And, if I'm required to blow into a tube to prove my sobriety in order to start my automobile on my own property, my rights have been infringed. Period.
-
But you are free to disable it on your own property, remember? Just please, be sure to hook it back up when you run to Wal-Mart.
-
Thanks for the move, Demo. I would've started in here if I knew it would take off debate-style. I figured it'd fizzle quick, lol.
-
I figured it'd fizzle quick, lol.
That's what she said.
-
But she was WRONG!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Nowhere did I say it should be easy to disable. I only said you can, legally, on your own property. It should not be so easy to disable that an impaired individual could do it standing outside the bar in the parking lot. You could compare that to a catalytic converter; they are inaccessible and non-servicable for most people; but you CAN take it off on your own property legally. On the roads, though, it must be in place and working.
As such; there most likely wouldn't be many people that would attempt to disable it. The ones that do (and are caught) are charged with disabling the device. If there is an accident; an officer is supposed to check for sobriety anyway; as drugs can impair one as well, and this does nothing for that. If he has you blow a breathalyzer and you're over limit, found to have disabled your sensor, and are involved in an accident; you should be charged with whatever crimes you've committed. DUI, disabling the device, and (if applicable) the accident. Obviously if you didn't cause the accident there's no charge on that; but again- if you're found to be intoxicated, or have disabled the device; you get charged.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I see you.
-
(http://www.guildhaven.org/images/angeltossing.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
You guys are missing an important question: WHO SMOTE THE HAM? :x
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!"
-
Xolik must have paid close attention in civics class. He just described how most laws get made.
-
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.
-
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? :x
-
Who always winds up paying for governments fuck-ups? :x
I see you.
-
This thread has been blessed by the presence of the All Knowing Ham.
-
Is he related to the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)?
-
(http://www.guildhaven.org/images/all_knowing_ham.jpg)
-
this idea = worse than drm
my car works for me.
everyone would disable it anyway.
-
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).