Alcohol Detectors in Cars?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>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.

Ahem.

Quote

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.

If you're going to quote a post, particularly a short one, please quote it all.

Thanks.

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

[billvon 2,922]

>Ahem.

Yes? You just explained how taillights help protect OTHER drivers, and prevents accidents that might injure the original driver. Again, akin to the alcohol detector thing.

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

Sure they do. Try to get a car registered, inspected and on the road that does not have taillights. See if anything happens that "stops the operation" of the vehicle.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Ahem.

Yes? You just explained how taillights help protect OTHER drivers, and prevents accidents that might injure the original driver. Again, akin to the alcohol detector thing.

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

Sure they do. Try to get a car registered, inspected and on the road that does not have taillights. See if anything happens that "stops the operation" of the vehicle.

If a tail light is not working the car is still physically drivable and startable.

If this alcohol detector isn't working properly, is there a bypass so the car can still start? Most likely not as that would defeat the entire purpose of the device to begin with.

Additionally if you don't have current registration, inspection, insurance, a license, a license plate etc. nothing is physically preventing that vehicle from being driven on the road. Granted it's illegal to do so, but unless caught there is nothing preventing it.

Playing the player for a sec, but what do you Bill personally think about making a device such as this mandatory?

I have a feeling you're just playing devils advocate here.

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

[billvon 2,922]

>If a tail light is not working the car is still physically drivable and startable.

Now you are quibbling.

The law requires you to have taillights, primarily to protect other drivers by warning them that you are braking. Do you disagree with that law?

>Playing the player for a sec, but what do you Bill personally think about making a
>device such as this mandatory?

I wouldn't, because they don't work well enough.

However -

Let's say you had a device that cost pennies, was never wrong, and only prevented you from starting the car when it was nearly impossible for you to be able to drive it without injury. (i.e. a BAC over .20 or so)

Would you object to THAT device being installed in all cars?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>If a tail light is not working the car is still physically drivable and startable.

Now you are quibbling.

Not a quibble as that was my point all along. Perhaps I didn't state it clear enough in the original post.

Quote

The law requires you to have taillights, primarily to protect other drivers by warning them that you are braking. Do you disagree with that law?

No, but I also realize there may be times where the law is not applicable (such as private property use only) and times in emergency situations where it needs to be disregarded. A binary device such as this (most likely with a no start failure mode to prevent tampering or bypassing) can't make that determination. This doesn't mean that the person breaking that law should be immune from the consequences of breaking the law, but in some cases even those consequences are the better option.

Quote

>Playing the player for a sec, but what do you Bill personally think about making a
>device such as this mandatory?

I wouldn't, because they don't work well enough.

However -

Let's say you had a device that cost pennies, was never wrong, and only prevented you from starting the car when it was nearly impossible for you to be able to drive it without injury. (i.e. a BAC over .20 or so)

Would you object to THAT device being installed in all cars?

You already lost at "was never wrong" so your answer still applies.

However -

Even if this theoretical device existed...

From earlier in the thread

Quote

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.

[billvon 2,922]

>You already lost at "was never wrong" so your answer still applies.

That's a technical argument, not a more basic one. There are now systems that have such good safety records that they are, in effect, "never wrong." (Some Boeing fly by wire systems, for example, or the airbags in many cars.) So you can certainly win the "never wrong" argument with a good enough system.

>However - Even if this theoretical device existed . . .

(rights argument deleted)

Fair enough. The reason I asked was that DaVinci, earlier in the thread, said:

========
The idea is great. The theory is it will stop drunk driving. But in reality it will not and most of us are smart enough to know that.
========

So I was trying to figure out whether his objection was that it just wasn't effective enough, or if he had some more basic objection.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

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....

and don't forget

"Think of the children!!"

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>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?

where it looks like you're going is "because it's a safety issue" but you're trying to get someone else to say it. (debating like that always annoyed me)

we can all point to studies that say you drive worse with a BAC of 0.10%, we can also point to studies that say tail lights increase visibility of your vehicle even in the daylight. (ditto horns, but windshields shield primarily from the wind bill. thus the name. make a jump without your goggles, it's much harder to see, now drive that way)

Can you point to a study that says BAC interlocks decrease the incidences of DUI? Can you point to cases where a BAC interlock has caused injury (indirectly) by preventing a sober driver from starting their car? (I can) Can we all agree that police cars and ambulances won't have them because they're emergency vehicles? (only the less equal vehicles will have to have them) Can we all agree that they are mechanical devices that are bypassed somewhat simply (even though it is illegal to do so)?

so would interlocks installed in all cars prevent DUIs? I don't know. They keep the honest people honest. Would they save lives? Again... don't know. Would they cost innocent people money they shouldn't have to spend? yes. would they increase the amount of time required to start your car by at least 30 seconds? yes.

explain to all the women here that the creepy guy in the dark parking lot now has extra time to bust their window and attack them while they give the BAC interlock a BJ.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

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?

I understand your argument. But you must have missed that I think a guy with a CHL should be allowed to carry on a plane and that security screening is not really working.

Security screening is to make people feel better, just like security guards are "visual deterrents".

Maybe you also missed that there are 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) and only 1.4m arrests for DUI. Stepping on the rights of 254.4M to stop 1.4M seems excessive.

Would you support random searches and DNA swabs/blood tests just to "check" if you are guilty of something?

Also:

A car is your private conveyance. A commercial plane is not.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

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?

Answered in post #114

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.

Quote

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?

Again, I propose that their ACTIONS determine if they are pulled over for additional screening. YOU are the one espousing the opinion you have suggested.

Quote

Everyone in the US is penalized by being required to buy a car with taillights, even if they never drive at night.

Do you suggest that cops should be allowed to pull people over in the middle of the day to check for taillights?

Me, I'd only pull them over at NIGHT if they were driving without them.

Quote

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

Yep, stupid. I have a buddy with a 73 Judge that is only driven in perfect weather that does not have working windshield wipers.... I guess you would call the cops on him?

But if he is driving in the rain without them... He should get a ticket.

Quote

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?

I would support pulling over a person driving at night without taillights, or driving in the rain without wipers.

Do you support the right of cops to pull you over in the middle of the day, no rain, in no traffic, while you are driving perfectly and inspect for taillights, wipers, and a horn?

[rehmwa 2]

If we put these in, can we at least delete:

day time running lights
and halogen lights
?

I'd go for that tradeoff any day.

won't someone please stop blinding the children??

...
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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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

Why?

>Check points - Wrong.

All check points?

I wish there was an alcohol interlock needed to get into Speakers Corner.... a bunch of the usual circle jerkers would have maybe 10 posts.

[DanG 1]

And for God's sake, turn signals are yellow, brake lights are red. I hate those turn signals that are just the brake light getting a little brighter on one side.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Still waiting on this one:

I would support pulling over a person driving at night without taillights, or driving in the rain without wipers.

Do you support the right of cops to pull you over in the middle of the day, no rain, in no traffic, while you are driving perfectly and inspect for taillights, wipers, and a horn?

[billvon 2,922]

>Do you support the right of cops to pull you over in the middle of the day, no rain, in
>no traffic, while you are driving perfectly and inspect for taillights, wipers, and a horn?

Hmm. Not really, but not because that should be illegal - because that's a waste of a cop's time. That is MUCH better handled by a garage doing an inspection, where they can inspect for things like taillights, horn etc.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

That is MUCH better handled by a garage doing an inspection, where they can inspect for things like taillights, horn etc.

In Texas, it was required to renew our inspection sticker once a year by having these things tested. I have found it odd that California has no such requirement. I guess they probably stop people for non-working lights or other obvious issues... (Not complaining - I'm perfectly happy to check these things on my own rather than having to waste time and money on a yearly inspection.)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>Do you support the right of cops to pull you over in the middle of the day, no rain, in
>no traffic, while you are driving perfectly and inspect for taillights, wipers, and a horn?

Hmm. Not really, but not because that should be illegal - because that's a waste of a cop's time. That is MUCH better handled by a garage doing an inspection, where they can inspect for things like taillights, horn etc.

But you support wasting my time with an interlock in my car even though I never drink and drive.

[billvon 2,922]

>But you support wasting my time with an interlock in my car even though I
>never drink and drive.

No, I don't - any more than you support wasting my time by requiring taillights.

[SkyDekker 1,418]

Quote

or driving in the rain without wipers.

Why? The RainX on my windshield is extremely effective at keeping it clear. Why are you in favour of te government telling me what to do?

Plus if I am not hitting anybody and I am not speeding, why do you care if my windshield wipers are working in the rain?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why? The RainX on my windshield is extremely effective at keeping it clear. Why are you in favour of te government telling me what to do?

You are confusing your desires with mine. You want the interlocks.

Quote

Plus if I am not hitting anybody and I am not speeding, why do you care if my windshield wipers are working in the rain?

*I* don't.

Why do you want to interfere in my life with interlocks?

[SkyDekker 1,418]

Quote

*I* don't.

In post #135 of this thread you state:

Quote

I would support pulling over a person driving at night without taillights, or driving in the rain without wipers.

[DaVinci 0]

You are confusing your desires with mine. You want the interlocks.

[SkyDekker 1,418]

I am trying to reconcile your two statements.

the one you use against interlocks, and then the one you use in favour of windshield wipers. They appear to be at odds with eachother.

Your answer: you want interlocks.

You want to try again?

[DaVinci 0]

No, my answer was: "You are confusing your desires with mine. you want interlocks."

You want to try again?

[billvon 2,922]

>You want the interlocks.

And you want taillights and wipers. I guess everyone has their own agenda, eh?