DaVinci 0 #151 April 15, 2011 Quote>You want the interlocks. And you want taillights and wipers. I guess everyone has their own agenda, eh? Where did I say I want them? I just said that the police can pull you over for violating the law *IF* you are actually violating it. You want to be able to make people do things when they have not even been charged with a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,922 #152 April 15, 2011 >Where did I say I want them? I just said that the police can pull you over for >violating the law *IF* you are actually violating it. I'll agree there. Don't pull people over just to check. But if you do violate some rule (i.e. speed) then they can pull you over and check for windshield wipers, alcohol detectors, taillights etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #153 April 15, 2011 QuoteI'll agree there. Don't pull people over just to check. But if you do violate some rule (i.e. speed) then they can pull you over and check for windshield wipers, alcohol detectors, taillights etc. Except you want to punish them for a crime they were not even charged with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,922 #154 April 15, 2011 >Except you want to punish them for a crime they were not even charged with. Nope, I have no intention of punishing anyone for a crime they were not charged with. You're 0 for 3. Perhaps if you post the same nonfactual statement six more times it will become more true? Works for Amazon and Mike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #155 April 15, 2011 I'm not a fan of daytime running lights. I absolutely hate halogens. quasi-non sequitor Friday ... 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
Bolas 5 #156 April 15, 2011 Quote>Except you want to punish them for a crime they were not even charged with. Nope, I have no intention of punishing anyone for a crime they were not charged with. You're 0 for 3. Perhaps if you post the same nonfactual statement six more times it will become more true? Works for Amazon and Mike. Actually you are. It's currently used as a punishment device. Basically, the court is saying "You've proved by getting 1 or more DUI/DWIs that you are prone to drinking and driving. Therefore, as part of your punishment, we're mandating you get this device installed on your car that checks your BAC before the car will start." What your supporting is the same end result. You've done is just taken the whole judicial process to determine guilt out of the equation.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
billvon 2,922 #157 April 15, 2011 >It's currently used as a punishment device. Correct, and taillights are not - because everyone has to have them. If that law were to change, such that everyone was required to have both, then it would not be punishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #158 April 15, 2011 Quote>It's currently used as a punishment device. Correct, and taillights are not - because everyone has to have them. If that law were to change, such that everyone was required to have both, then it would not be punishment. Ankle bracelets for house arrest are currently used as a punishment device. So if the laws were changed to require everyone to wear one, you'd be fine with that? The biggest issu I have is this machine operates without probable cause. If law enforcement can't do it, why should we let automated devices do it if it hinders someone needlessly? Were someone to come up with a device that monitored a persons driving and if it determined it to be erratic, require a breathalyzer, that would be a different situation entirely.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
DaVinci 0 #159 April 18, 2011 Quote>Except you want to punish them for a crime they were not even charged with. Nope, I have no intention of punishing anyone for a crime they were not charged with. You're 0 for 3. Perhaps if you post the same nonfactual statement six more times it will become more true? Works for Amazon and Mike. And you, Kallend, funjumper all seem to dodge when shown to be wrong. YOU want EVERYONE to have to use an interlock device. Currently those are only for people who have been FOUND GUILTY of DUI/DWI. You want that standard to be applied to everyone. I'm sorry you can't defend your position better than you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,418 #160 April 18, 2011 QuoteYOU want EVERYONE to have to use an interlock device. Wanting and not having an objection to something are not the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #161 April 18, 2011 QuoteWanting and not having an objection to something are not the same thing "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,418 #162 April 18, 2011 Quote"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" And that choice would still not be the same as the choice of wanting something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #163 April 19, 2011 Seems to me a cheaper, easier and quicker way of saving lives with auto modifications is to put speed limiters on them so people can not exceed the highest speed available on the freeway. Costs next to nothing, there's no excuse for not wanting one and everything I've seen indicates speed is a leading contributor to auto fatalities. Personally, I prefer the idea of individuals being responsible for themselves and a legal system that provide reasonable and consistent punishment for transgressions. Seems this proposal deems that unlikely, I think my idea has more merit than this one. If you wanted to get really cute, you could put GPS in the car that knows where you are and the speed limit there so you can't exceed the limit anywhere.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,922 #164 April 19, 2011 >YOU want EVERYONE to have to use an interlock device. You are 0 for 4! You really are going for six. I take it you subscribe to the John Kyl school of debate, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #165 April 19, 2011 QuoteYou are 0 for 4! You really are going for six. I take it you subscribe to the John Kyl school of debate, then. I see, I thought we were supposed to play the ball? You have stated support for this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #166 April 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou are 0 for 4! You really are going for six. I take it you subscribe to the John Kyl school of debate, then. I see, I thought we were supposed to play the ball? You have stated support for this. he's a mod. backhanded PA's are allowed-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,922 #167 April 20, 2011 >You have stated support for this. No, I haven't. You are either lying intentionally or not reading what I post. (Or, to be charitable, your post may simply not be intended as a factual statement.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #168 April 27, 2011 Quote >You have stated support for this. No, I haven't. You are either lying intentionally or not reading what I post. (Or, to be charitable, your post may simply not be intended as a factual statement.) Still playing the player I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
