Posted on 05/15/2013 8:38:01 AM PDT by Steelers6
No I’m not promoting drunk driving, just stating that this nanny state crap has gone way too far. The dangerous drunks out there aren’t at .08, they are at more like .25. I’ve known four people killed by drunks on the road. Everyone of the drunks involved had already lost their license, were driving illegally, and were hammered. Making the already silly limit even lower would have done nothing to prevent them from killing others.
I support government staying out of my business, but if I am texting and/or on the phone and run over your child what would you think?
Again, I hate more laws but the rise of people engrossed in their phones and oblivious to external stimuli is getting dangerous.
Everyone loves technology so technology is the answer, make the phones sensitive to velocity and shut them down once they are over a selected velocity or make the car disable the signal. Shoot people seem ok with the government and insurance companies data mining your cars with the “black boxes” they are staring to push all in the name of saving you money, so what is one more little safety gadget.
“long-time alkies are probably functional at 0.12”
I guarantee you that most true alcoholics can function far above that level. That is what they would measure after waking up from a late night of drinking. For a moderate drinker like me 0.12 is just a good buzz.
Hmmm.... Guess I’ll have to walk to the bar and stumble home...
Look for insurance company money to be pushing this.
Cell phone use is about as deadly as a .08 BAC
Sober cell phone use is about as deadly as a .08 BAC
Texting while driving is many, many times worse than drinking and driving. Why are texaholics not being crucified?
We are doing everything we can to destroy the restaurant industry.
The drunk-driving legal crusade has become the current home of modern-day abolitionists. This has nothing at all with curbing drinking and driving, it has everything to do with drinking, period.
Ha!
I have relatives in Vancouver and from what was related to me the police were given quite a bit of latitude in enforcement. When the law went into effect DUI check points sprang up like toad stools after a rain storm. Initially it was not unusual to go through several in the course of a week.
The police increased their traffic stops in sort a vehicular version of “stop and frisk” with a roadside sobriety test as the desired result. The initial stop would be predicated on a stated minor traffic infraction such as not signaling on a lane change. Then if license and registration were in order you got to blow in a breathalyzer. If you were negative the police had the option to cut you a break in the supposedly observed traffic infraction.
Granted a few were nailed initially. Pubs/taverns as well as some restaurants noticed a decrease in business and cab companies got more business. It has calmed down somewhat and there is push back thru the courts.
http://lifeafterimpairedcharge.com/canadian-impaired-driving-laws-2/british-columbia-introduces-stricter-alcohol-penalties/
From the article
Although a driver may not be charged criminally (unless there are obvious signs of impairment, and then an Impaired Driving criminal charge could be laid), the Province is providing DUI penalties for those found to have a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 while driving.
The new British Columbia law provides for harsh penalties for those drivers which include an automatic 3 day suspension, a 3 day vehicle impoundment and $400.00 in fines and legal fees.
IMHO, if it has, then I'll listen to lowering it further.
My guess is that proponents (or opponents) will just find some statistics to torture until the desired answer is obtained, though. And, we'll never know.
Wonder where the money is on this bill? Follow the dollars.....
Imagine a world where
-No one could run from the cops.
-All cars would stop safely when authorities remotely command them too.
-Where authorities could decide to limit or ban long distance travel with a touch of a button (got to cut down on gas use)
-Where authorities could ration your car use just as easily.
-Where authorities could ban certain people from traveling for any reason.
-Where any one capable of hacking together a signal spoofing device could stop your car at any time and have their way with anyone in it.
-Where the government could track everywhere you went (got to monitor and route traffic, don’t you know).
-Where a government could prevent you from driving to select locations (You have been eating out too much and we decided that is bad for you).
Going out for a couple beers at TGIF on the way home probably beats .12
You might as well make it illegal to consume alcohol in any restaurant or outside the home at all.
• Drunks can get home safely • Auto accidents and injuries are a rare occurrence. • $ wasted on auto collision repairs is almost eliminated. • Traffic tickets cease to exist. • Traffic courts cease to exist. • Ambulance chasers cease to exist. • Car insurance becomes cheap due to lack of accidents. • People are productive during commutes. • Elderly, sick and youth can all be chauffeured to Doctor appointments, ball practice, etc. • Small deliveries and courier services could be made with small efficient unmanned vehicles. Think Pizza, groceries, UPS, FEDEX, etc.
Imagine a world where…
• The government knows exactly where you have gone and when • The government can decide if you should be allowed to travel • The government decides what route you must take to get to your destination
In addition, to your other points, drunks can get home safely, they can do that today, call a cab, call a friend, get a designated driver.
Auto accidents and injuries are a rare occurrence. Auto accidents are usually due to lack of experience in a given driving situation. Relying on automation will increase the experience deficit, resulting in more accident in non-automated driving conditions.
Traffic tickets cease to exist. I don’t think government will give up this lucrative cash cow.
Traffic courts cease to exist. See above.
Ambulance chasers cease to exist. Again, see above.
I will give you the other points you mentioned.
They could implement all of those fears now without automated driving.
Cars are already required to have a black box. And many cars with OnBoard already have “Engine turn off” capability that the cops can initiate. They don’t need automated driving to ration your car use. Controlling your purchase at the pump works well, remember the Nixon years. They even rationed fuel back in 1942. Combine a GPS with an engine turn off device and you’ve got location control.
You wouldn’t forbid guns for fear government would misuse them. So don’t forbid a great idea like automated driving out of the same fear, when government can already do everything you’re worried about if they wanted and our elected reps would let them.
See post 56.
I don’t think government would have a choice whether they give up traffic tickets. If the technology progresses to where nobody breaks the traffic law. They just don’t have a choice.
No, cars are not required to have a ‘black box’. Current digital engine control systems have nothing to do with location tracking or remote cutoff. And they certainly don’t have GPS in them. Yet.
Of course they rationed fuel back then. That was a far cry from having an automatic system. They would not wait for a war to ration. They would pass a regulation and there would be nothing you could do about it. Manual cars would become illegal and we would all become prisoners with our every movement controlled by the state. You tell your car ‘take me to the gun range’ and it says, “Sorry, you are not allowed shooting any more. You say ‘take me to the bar’ and it says ‘no, your doctor ordered you to drink less’. You say, ‘I want to go to the store’ and it says ‘No, the bus goes there. Save gas and take the bus.’
First it will be, “everyone should get free power for their eclectic car” and then it would be, “Oh you can’t drive that far because it is wasteful.”
Technically your right but...
"Last month, the federal government proposed that all new passenger vehicles be equipped with the devices. But 96% of new cars already have them, as do at least 150 million older vehicles. American makers, led by GM and Ford, have been putting them in cars since the mid-1990s."
'Black Boxes' are in 96% of new cars
Not all of the existing black boxes do everything that y'all are afraid of, like cut the engine or track your GPS position. But again, if the Congress wants to add those features, they can unless we can defeat it on 4th Amendment rights, and those features don't require automating driving.
So it doesn't make sense to oppose automated driving on the grounds that government can put those features in, when government can put those features in anyway without the automated driving.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.