Shotgun 1 #26 March 11, 2011 QuoteFirst of all, those of us that don't drink shouldn't have to spend more money to keep those of you that do drink off the roads. I believe the idea is to make the roads safer for even those who don't drink. Not a particularly good idea though, especially with the current technology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #27 March 11, 2011 QuoteMight be a good idea for rental cars and city buses. It could help reduce how much a rental car company pays to their insurance company, which would in turn allow them to reduce their rental costs, making them more competitive. Exactly. If someone or a company wants to add one of these to their car(s) for say an insurance discount or if there is consumer demand, then so be it. It should not be made a law though.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #28 March 11, 2011 Am I the only one who sees a problem with how easy these things would be to defeat? I mean if you REALLY wanted to beat a device like this all you would have to do is tie a balloon to a piece of pvc, put a rubber hose (approx the size of the thing you blow into) on the other end of the pvc, fill the baloon with like normal while sober, then clamp off the rubber hose with some hemostats. Come time to go home, put the end of the rubber hose on the blow nossle and release hemostats. Seriously, the idea of putting these things in every car is as assine as a left handed baseball bat.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #29 March 12, 2011 Sounds like a good idea to me. As long as California limits what sort of guns can change owners since people might use them in crimes I think it's fair to require alcohol ignition interlocks on all cars changing owners here since other drivers are more likely to hurt me than gun owners. Usually I'd be against this sort of thing, but as long as we're going to have a nanny state I want some of the regulations to potentially benefit me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 402 #30 March 12, 2011 Yes I know I am from the nanny state so you can blame my views on that. BUT - I live next door to an alcoholic. The law has limited powers to prevent her driving. We are limited to quickly rushing outside and making sure that all of our kids and vehicles are safe when she in drunk, calling 999 and getting the helicopter scrambled so they can try and catch her in the act. On average the helicopter and 2 or 3 police cars are scrambled every couple of months and she has been caught and banned once in 6 years. A car that is not being driven with due care and attention is a lethal weapon and people who are over the limit should be prevented from driving. So I have no problem with the device. When in a car I will have a single drink (generally just a pint of scotch ), on the bike I don't touch alcohol at all. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildWilly 0 #31 March 12, 2011 for people that have a track record of drunk driving convictions, sure make that mandatory. But I would never buy such a car. By making these mandatory in all cars is basically telling people you are all guilty and incompetent drivers who have no self control. A little too big brother for me. Willygrowing old is inevitable, growing up is optional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 March 12, 2011 QuoteBy making these mandatory in all cars is basically telling people you are all guilty and incompetent drivers who have no self control. Way to spin it. It's not telling people that at all. QuoteA little too big brother for me. OK, maybe so. But call it what it is. "Prevention of the guilty" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Don't try to demonize it by calling it something that it's not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #33 March 12, 2011 Quote Quote By making these mandatory in all cars is basically telling people you are all guilty and incompetent drivers who have no self control. Way to spin it. It's not telling people that at all. Quote A little too big brother for me. OK, maybe so. But call it what it is. "Prevention of the guilty" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Don't try to demonize it by calling it something that it's not. So you don't think mandating a device such as this is a presumption of guilt? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 March 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote By making these mandatory in all cars is basically telling people you are all guilty and incompetent drivers who have no self control. Way to spin it. It's not telling people that at all. Quote A little too big brother for me. OK, maybe so. But call it what it is. "Prevention of the guilty" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Don't try to demonize it by calling it something that it's not. So you don't think mandating a device such as this is a presumption of guilt? No; no more than, say, security tags on retail store merchandise are a presumption of guilt. Nor would I think so even if such tags were mandated. The world is full of security devices and measures. By and large, they're not presumptions that people are guilty; they are preventive protection against people who would misbehave if given the chance to do so. As far as I'm concerned, as long as these devices don't deliver false positives, there's greater good than harm. Of course, all devices can malfunction, and those instances could be a real bummer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #35 March 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote By making these mandatory in all cars is basically telling people you are all guilty and incompetent drivers who have no self control. Way to spin it. It's not telling people that at all. Quote A little too big brother for me. OK, maybe so. But call it what it is. "Prevention of the guilty" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Don't try to demonize it by calling it something that it's not. So you don't think mandating a device such as this is a presumption of guilt? No; no more than, say, security tags on retail store merchandise are a presumption of guilt. Nor would I think so even if such tags were mandated. The world is full of security devices and measures. By and large, they're not presumptions that people are guilty; they are preventive protection against people who would misbehave if given the chance to do so. As far as I'm concerned, as long as these devices don't deliver false positives, there's greater good than harm. Of course, all devices can malfunction, and those instances could be a real bummer. Security tags are a deterrent and designed to protect their property. Body scans and searches by TSA or another security group to enter a specific area are similar. If mandated for all, this is a piece of equipment that would go on a persons personal property that won't let one start their own vehicle unless they prove they haven't been drinking. It doesn't monitor your speech or body movements (or driving habits) and then if something seems amiss makes you take a breath test, you have to prove it wrong everytime, or IOW presumption of guilt. No issue with offering it as an option on cars or requiring it for those that have gotten DUI or DWI's, but a government mandate for all is not acceptable or would likely be found not constitutional either.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #36 March 12, 2011 QuoteIf mandated for all, this is a piece of equipment that would go on a persons personal property that won't let one start their own vehicle unless they prove they haven't been drinking. It doesn't monitor your speech or body movements (or driving habits) and then if something seems amiss makes you take a breath test, you have to prove it wrong everytime, or IOW presumption of guilt. Yeah. Now you're just spinning. I ain't gonna go round with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 March 12, 2011 Regular guy in a bar has a few drinks. Gets in an argument and leaves before it becomes a problem. As he leaves, the other guy and some of his friends come out with knives and start shouting at him. He gets in his car, locks the doors - they start beating on the windows, he starts the car and drives away. no, wait - he can't start the car, they break the windows, drag him out and kill him bloodily. His family sues everyone, including the state. etc etc etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 March 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf mandated for all, this is a piece of equipment that would go on a persons personal property that won't let one start their own vehicle unless they prove they haven't been drinking. It doesn't monitor your speech or body movements (or driving habits) and then if something seems amiss makes you take a breath test, you have to prove it wrong everytime, or IOW presumption of guilt. Yeah. Now you're just spinning. I ain't gonna go round with you. Seems an accurate summation - how is he spinning?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #39 March 12, 2011 Quote Regular guy in a bar has a few drinks. Gets in an argument and leaves before it becomes a problem. As he leaves, the other guy and some of his friends come out with knives and start shouting at him. He gets in his car, locks the doors - they start beating on the windows, he starts the car and drives away. no, wait - he can't start the car, they break the windows, drag him out and kill him bloodily. His family sues everyone, including the state. etc etc etc Who cares...better a filthy dirty scumbag low-life drunk who never learns his lesson and should be labled as such for the rest of his life gets killed rather then the slim chance of him killing our children out roaming the streets at 2 in the f'ing morning...*spelling edit*Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #40 March 13, 2011 Quotethey break the windows, drag him out and kill him bloodily. Hey, I conceded it could be a bummer. Quote His family sues everyone, including the state. etc etc etc Thus proving that every cloud has silver lining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #41 March 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteHis family sues everyone, including the state. etc etc etc Thus proving that every cloud has silver lining. Yep, they'll have to sue EVERYBODY to make up for the loss in DUI defense revenue... *edit* Also, not sure if the govment is gonna wanna take a hit on all the revenue from DUI fines and driver responsibility fees...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,370 #42 March 13, 2011 Mistake-proofing is something that works for a lot of situations -- if you remove the opportunity for mistakes (preferably by passive means), then mistakes reduced. If you have a canopy relined by a rigger, would you rather he or she a. used a pre-made lineset from the manufacturer b. measured each line from a roll and made the lineset from scratch? Most people would choose a. Even though it could say that you don't trust your rigger. There's mistake-proofing in cars now. Virtually every car sold now has anti-lock brakes. They cost more. Even if you live in the desert where it never snows or rains, you still have to pay for them. We're simply talking about another type of mistake-proofing, and whether it would be too intrusive. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #43 March 13, 2011 QuoteThere's mistake-proofing in cars now. Virtually every car sold now has anti-lock brakes. As long as humans are at the controls, cars will never be mistake proof. Anti-lock brakes are popular because they help the panicky driver who is more likely to slam on the brakes because most drivers do not have experience in a controlled environment discovered the performance limits of their cars and are clueless how to apply their brakes for maximum stopping efficiency. Anti-lock brakes, just as front wheel drive automatic transmissions are popular with car makers because it caters to the lowest common denominator, the low skilled panicky driver. Don't fool yourself into thinking anti-lock brakes are mistake proof. Anti-lock brakes increase stopping distances. Drinking and driving is a serious problem. But breathalyzers attached to car ignitions is just a bad idea and it takes the Big Government Big Brother mantra to the next slippery slope. In 1971 the movie THX1138 was made. Back then it was pure science fiction. But I fear it may become reality in the not too distant future. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #44 March 13, 2011 QuoteMistake-proofing is something that works for a lot of situations -- if you remove the opportunity for mistakes (preferably by passive means), then mistakes reduced. If you have a canopy relined by a rigger, would you rather he or she a. used a pre-made lineset from the manufacturer b. measured each line from a roll and made the lineset from scratch? Most people would choose a. Even though it could say that you don't trust your rigger. There's mistake-proofing in cars now. Virtually every car sold now has anti-lock brakes. They cost more. Even if you live in the desert where it never snows or rains, you still have to pay for them. We're simply talking about another type of mistake-proofing, and whether it would be too intrusive. Wendy P. In your rigger example, people have a choice. The FAA is not mandating what people have to do. ABS/ESC is government mandated, just like airbags. tire inflation sensors, etc. The difference is all of those systems are passive and only take effect when needed and assist the driver and passengers. Another argument against this device. Look at it's history and what it's original and current use is. If they decided to mandate this device for all new vehicles, it would quickly be found unconstitutional.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #45 March 13, 2011 QuoteIf they decided to mandate this device for all new vehicles, it would quickly be found unconstitutional. Really? OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,877 #46 March 13, 2011 >As long as humans are at the controls, cars will never be mistake proof. Agreed. However, you can make them _more_ mistake proof than they are now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #47 March 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf they decided to mandate this device for all new vehicles, it would quickly be found unconstitutional. Really? OK. On reflection, that was snarky of me, without need. Sorry. With all due respect: My own sense, from general experience and training, is that it would probably pass constitutional muster in the view of about 80-90% of federal judges (as well as my own view). But I'm open-minded to being shown a cogent legal argument that it would be unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #48 March 13, 2011 Quote Yes I know I am from the nanny state so you can blame my views on that. BUT - I live next door to an alcoholic. The law has limited powers to prevent her driving. We are limited to quickly rushing outside and making sure that all of our kids and vehicles are safe when she in drunk, calling 999 and getting the helicopter scrambled so they can try and catch her in the act. On average the helicopter and 2 or 3 police cars are scrambled every couple of months and she has been caught and banned once in 6 years. A car that is not being driven with due care and attention is a lethal weapon and people who are over the limit should be prevented from driving. So I have no problem with the device. When in a car I will have a single drink (generally just a pint of scotch ), on the bike I don't touch alcohol at all. Why does she own a vehicle. They should have siezed it and auctioned it off??? Wow! Your law enforcement and judicial system is pretty worthless apparantely!!!! Burn her car, problem solved. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #49 March 13, 2011 Quote Quote Quote If they decided to mandate this device for all new vehicles, it would quickly be found unconstitutional. Really? OK. On reflection, that was snarky of me, without need. Sorry. With all due respect: My own sense, from general experience and training, is that it would probably pass constitutional muster in the view of about 80-90% of federal judges (as well as my own view). But I'm open-minded to being shown a cogent legal argument that it would be unconstitutional. Innocent until proven guilty is a big piece of it. While true there are numerous allowed processes that allow one to be searched or monitored in some way, they are location or instance specific with anothers property. None of these apply to the use or restriction of ones own property or even on their property. This breath checking device is akin to the house arrest anklets and/or the alcohol and drug detection devices court ordered to be worn by parties individuals convicted of a crime as they were found guilty. Mandating all use this or a similar device is the equivalent of detaining and putting the person on trial without probable cause. Additionally I can't think of a single other court ordered device for people convicted of a crime that has been mandated for all to now use so there's not even a precedent thankfully. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #50 March 16, 2011 My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
