Alcohol Detectors in Cars?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Do you think drunk driving laws are a stupid idea?

No, but I do think laws restricting someone who has not done anything wrong in the hope of stopping drunk driving is wrong.

Interlock on a guys car that has had a DUI - Great!
Interlock on everyone's car - Wrong

Pulling over a suspected drunk driver - Great!
Pulling over a car at random to test - Wrong

Check points - Wrong.

[billvon 2,877]

>Interlock on a guys car that has had a DUI - Great!
>Interlock on everyone's car - Wrong

Why?

>Check points - Wrong.

All check points?

[SkyDekker 1,393]

Quote

but I do think laws restricting someone who has not done anything wrong in the hope of stopping drunk driving is wrong.

Does that only apply to drunk driving or to other areas as well?

Like as in: Let people bring what ever they want on airplanes. We'll just punish the guys who hijack the plane and fly it into a building.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>Interlock on a guys car that has had a DUI - Great!
>Interlock on everyone's car - Wrong

Why?

Until you have been proven to have an issue with something, I think you should be trusted. Putting interlocks on 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) when there were only 1.4m arrests for DUI seems a bit excessive.

The whole innocent till proven guilty thing.

Quote

>Check points - Wrong.

All check points?

Check points designed to go fishing for DUI's. Checkpoints at military facilities etc are not fishing expeditions.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Does that only apply to drunk driving or to other areas as well?

Until you have proven to be guilty of something, I do not feel you should be punished for it.

Innocent till proven guilty and all that nonsense.

Quote

Like as in: Let people bring what ever they want on airplanes.

I guess you support interlocks on every car *except* people with a history of DUI's?

You do know that hijacking a plane was already illegal... Yet they did it.

And you do know knifed were not allowed... Yet they took them anyway... Right?

[billvon 2,877]

>Until you have been proven to have an issue with something, I think you should be
>trusted.

Hmm. But you said above that you have no problem with drunk driving laws, which basically say that we can't trust people to drive after they've been drinking. Why not trust that people can handle their liquor until they prove they can't?

>Check points designed to go fishing for DUI's.

OK. How about check points designed to go fishing for illegal immigrants?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Hmm. But you said above that you have no problem with drunk driving laws, which basically say that we can't trust people to drive after they've been drinking. Why not trust that people can handle their liquor until they prove they can't?

Your argument is sad. I DO trust people. When they are driving erratically like a person over the legal limit THEN pull them over and CHECK. You want to pull anyone over at random and arrest them without cause.

Quote

OK. How about check points designed to go fishing for illegal immigrants?

Nope. Border checks sure, but a random checkpoint no.

[billvon 2,877]

>I DO trust people.

Then why not let someone who can handle a BAC of .1 safely drive home without throwing him in jail?

>You want to pull anyone over at random and arrest them without cause.

No, I don't.

>Border checks sure, but a random checkpoint no.

Fair enough.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

And you do know knifed were not allowed... Yet they took them anyway... Right?

pre-9-11 I carried a knife with me on every flight I took. I took it out of my pocket at the metal detector, put it in the bowl and put it through the x-ray machine or handed the bowl to the security folks to inspect (seemed to depend on the airport). There was (until 9-11) an FAA regulation that defined a certain class of knives (less than 4" blade I think) as a pocket knife and not a weapon.

since 9-11 I've accidentally carried a knife onto a plane twice (in my carry-on). Neither time was I confronted by the security folks. (they didn't know it either).

police are a reactionary force. Arrest is a reaction to a condition. Laws don't keep those conditions from occurring in all cases.

Punishing law abiding citizens by making them install interlock devices is wrong.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>I DO trust people.

Then why not let someone who can handle a BAC of .1 safely drive home without throwing him in jail?

What part of "When they are driving erratically like a person over the legal limit THEN pull them over and CHECK" was hard to grasp?

When they appear to be intoxicated, then pull them over and check. That is a FAR cry from pulling people over at random.

Putting interlocks on 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) when there were only 1.4m arrests for DUI seems a bit excessive.

[SkyDekker 1,393]

Quote

What part of "When they are driving erratically like a person over the legal limit THEN pull them over and CHECK" was hard to grasp?

Somebody does a rolling stop at a stop sign and gets pulled over for this. Officer smells alcohol. Did the rolling stop happen because of the alcohol, or does this person do a rolling stop sober as well? Should the person be written up for a DUI.

What if they drive perfectly well at that BAC?

Your position is unworkable. Restrictions have to be in place at certain levels.

Do you believe there should be security check points prior to boarding an airplane?

[billvon 2,877]

>When they appear to be intoxicated, then pull them over and check.

And then what?

Let's say someone gets pulled over for speeding. They seem drunk to the cop. The cop checks and they have a BAC of .10. The guy says "I'm fine; I drive like that all the time and I've never had a problem, I have a high tolerance."

Do you trust him, give him a speeding ticket and let him go? Or do you arrest him, and go with a law that restricts someone who has not done anything wrong in the hope of stopping irresponsible drivers?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Somebody does a rolling stop at a stop sign and gets pulled over for this. Officer smells alcohol. Did the rolling stop happen because of the alcohol, or does this person do a rolling stop sober as well?

The police now has suspicion of DUI. And can test accordingly. If there was no smell of alcohol, then no suspicion and no test.

Quote

Should the person be written up for a DUI.

No, the person should be *tested* for DUI.

Quote

What if they drive perfectly well at that BAC?

Then they would not get pulled over. And if they "drive perfectly well at that BAC", then they pose no risk to others.

Quote

Your position is unworkable. Restrictions have to be in place at certain levels.

My position is completely workable. If someone is suspected of DUI due to their ACTIONS then you test them.

Your position of randomly pulling people over to test them is a violation of civil rights.

Quote

Do you believe there should be security check points prior to boarding an airplane?

Sure. Although I think a guy with a CHL should not be prohibited.

Do you think police should be allowed to randomly search people like an airport screening for no reason other than to check for things?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And then what?

Then follow the laws for BAC in place at that location at that time.

Do you propose that police should be allowed to pull over someone for no reason what so ever and strip search them, blood and breath tests, DNA sample..Etc?

Quote

Do you trust him, give him a speeding ticket and let him go? Or do you arrest him, and go with a law that restricts someone who has not done anything wrong

Illogical position... they have done something wrong.

1. Speeding
2. Driving under the influence (according to the test)

Fact is that you seem to be supporting random searches of people and I am supporting only checking people that have shown through ACTIONS to be breaking the law.

In my world only the guy that is ACTING suspicious should be subject to additional checking.

In your world any random person may be stopped and searched by the police for no reason.

[SkyDekker 1,393]

Quote

Your position of randomly pulling people over to test them is a violation of civil rights.

Sigh, I never stated that position.

Never mind, having a discussion with you is just not feasible. You just make shit up ass you go along.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Never mind, having a discussion with you is just not feasible. You just make shit up ass you go along.

Hah... You did that long before I got even close to doing that.

"Like as in: Let people bring what ever they want on airplanes. We'll just punish the guys who hijack the plane and fly it into a building. "

Having a logical discussion with you based on facts is impossible... you have shown that on more than one occasion.

[wmw999 2,370]

Is

requiring everyone who gets on an airplane to go through a potentially long line (at some cost in time for people whose time is worth something) regardless of whether they've given anyone any reason to believe they're bringing anything illegal onto the airplane

functionally the same as

requiring everyone who wants to drive a car to pay for a breathalyzer to blow into before they drive?

Obviously it's not exactly the same; few things are exactly the same (including identical twins who are acrobats and good in bed ).

But it's a pretty good parallel to me.

If you remove the fact that we're already doing one, and not doing the other, why is one OK and the other isn't?

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)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Is

requiring everyone who gets on an airplane to go through a potentially long line (at some cost in time for people whose time is worth something) regardless of whether they've given anyone any reason to believe they're bringing anything illegal onto the airplane

functionally the same as

requiring everyone who wants to drive a car to pay for a breathalyzer to blow into before they drive?

Obviously it's not exactly the same; few things are exactly the same (including identical twins who are acrobats and good in bed ).

But it's a pretty good parallel to me.

If you remove the fact that we're already doing one, and not doing the other, why is one OK and the other isn't?

Wendy P.

Because otherwise the terrorists win... you should know that....

[billvon 2,877]

>Illogical position... they have done something wrong.

Right. And if they require alcohol detectors in cars, and you drive without one, you will be doing something wrong, too. We can agree on that.

That's not my question. My question is - you have stated that no one should be penalized by requiring them to drive with an alcohol detector if they have not proven that they are a risk. Why do you think people should be penalized for driving with a high BAC if they have not proven that they are a risk? Do you feel that no one can possibly drive safely with a BAC of .10, and thus are criminals even if they have done nothing wrong?

Let's look at this another way. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to buy a car with taillights, even if they never drive at night. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to buy a car with working windshield wipers, even if they never drive in the rain. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to have a horn, even if they drive only during times of very light traffic. Are you OK with those things? If so - why?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Is

requiring everyone who gets on an airplane to go through a potentially long line (at some cost in time for people whose time is worth something) regardless of whether they've given anyone any reason to believe they're bringing anything illegal onto the airplane

functionally the same as

requiring everyone who wants to drive a car to pay for a breathalyzer to blow into before they drive?

Obviously it's not exactly the same; few things are exactly the same (including identical twins who are acrobats and good in bed ).

But it's a pretty good parallel to me.

If you remove the fact that we're already doing one, and not doing the other, why is one OK and the other isn't?

Wendy P.

I stated this above somewhere. The difference is the car is one's personal property whereas a search to enter an airport, federal building, sporting event etc. is simply a condition of accessing their property.

A better example would be requiring breathalyzers on all residences that would not let you out if you were drunk to prevent public intoxication.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Illogical position... they have done something wrong.

Quote

Right. And if they require alcohol detectors in cars, and you drive without one, you will be doing something wrong, too. We can agree on that.

That's not my question. My question is - you have stated that no one should be penalized by requiring them to drive with an alcohol detector if they have not proven that they are a risk. Why do you think people should be penalized for driving with a high BAC if they have not proven that they are a risk? Do you feel that no one can possibly drive safely with a BAC of .10, and thus are criminals even if they have done nothing wrong?

Hence why I disagree with DUI checkpoints as it removes probable cause other than smell. Coincidently, most are calling them license or insurance checkpoints now so thelocalities know what they're doing is suspect.

Quote

Let's look at this another way. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to buy a car with taillights, even if they never drive at night. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to buy a car with working windshield wipers, even if they never drive in the rain. Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to have a horn, even if they drive only during times of very light traffic. Are you OK with those things? If so - why?

Because those items are there to assist a driver, not "interrogate" them.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

• Quote

[billvon 2,877]

>Because those items are there to assist a driver

How do taillights "assist a driver?" He can't see them, they cost money and require maintenance.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

This guy could use one of these alcohol detectors in his car.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Because those items are there to assist a driver

How do taillights "assist a driver?" He can't see them, they cost money and require maintenance.

Assist a driver as in allowing others to see what they're doing so they're less likely to have an accident.

Tail lights, even if malfunctioning, do not stop the operation of the vehicle either.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,877]

>Assist a driver as in allowing others to see what they're doing so they're
>less likely to have an accident.

Ah! So it protects OTHER drivers and prevents accidents that might injure the original driver! You've just made an excellent argument for an alcohol detector.