Posted on 08/07/2007 4:59:35 PM PDT by rellimpank
"Pre-emptive war" got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver's system -- and shut the car down if it does.
Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea -- and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.
Sounds OK in principle -- sort of like the idea of liberating Iraq. The devil's in the details, though.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
More presumption of guilt. That is way wrong. How can you be an attorney when you are ignorant of peoples rights?
That's true, and that's the problem.
Freepers are arguing for the right to drive drunk.
No, they're not, and that's where you fit into the leftie mold so perfectly, you have no concept of unreasonable search, oppressive government and tyranny.
There’s a concept called “ordered liberty,”
Yes there is, you and Joe Stalin agree that the government should decide when rights interfere with order and the government should revoke the rights it has granted.
You do not have the right to drive drunk, and endanger people's lives. This interlock system has no criminal consequences whatsoever. You don't have to prove you're innocent. You have to prove that you're safe to drive. I hope that you can understand that distinction.
“Yes, and a tiny handful of women get abortions because their lives are in danger, or because of rape or incest. You sound like the Feminazis who believe that this tiny handful of cases justifies keeping abortion legal as a form of birth control. They focus on the weirdest, most far-out cases and pretend that those cases are typical. The typical driver does not limit his driving to private property”
HUH? I hope you aren’t driving cause you certainly sound drunk with logic like that.
“But it doesn’t do that. It just prevents you from driving drunk.”
Nonsense, it is based on unconstitutional assumptions and is an infringement of private property rights. People who want to drive drunk will find a way around it.
You are a liar.
“You do not have the right to drive drunk, and endanger people’s lives.”
What power is the government using to regulate this?
“You don’t have to prove you’re innocent. You have to prove that you’re safe to drive. I hope that you can understand that distinction.”
In other words prove you are innocent. And thats not proving you are safe, its only proving the breathalyzer received a clean sample.
That's one of many areas where you've shown yourself to be mistaken. I have an excellent concept of what constitutes an unreasonable search. If the interlock system transmitted its results (and a copy of the driver's license, and a description of the car) to the cops, it would be an outrageously unreasonable search and I would be opposed to such a system.
But it doesn't do that. It just keeps drunks from driving.
That's a strawman argument. I just said that you don't have to prove you're innocent. As I understand it, these interlock systems will not record the results or transmit them to law enforcement. So you don't have a leg to stand on when you whine about "proving you are innocent."
You're full of crapola. There has not been one single post saying any such thing.
MADD’s agenda is now just to raise money. The founding mother quit LOOOOONG ago.
MADD is ONLY about fundraising and paying money to raise more money.
This is a scam to give them a new cause since education has proven FAR more effective than draconian laws.
“That’s a strawman argument. I just said that you don’t have to prove you’re innocent. As I understand it, these interlock systems will not record the results or transmit them to law enforcement. So you don’t have a leg to stand on when you whine about “proving you are innocent.””
No whining here but your projection is interesting. Also, not naive enough to welcome infringement on my personal freedoms.
Perhaps they won’t transmit to LE on day one. I can easily see some control freak saying “why aren’t we sending these results to LE, these folks need to be verified before they drive.”
“In my opinion, if these devices allow someone with 0.079% BAC to drive, they are acceptable.”
You should read the article. These things would not be that precise. And, for liability reasons, they would have to be set much lower in order to guarantee that someone at 0.08 would not pass.
Contaminants would also be an issue. Suppose you’re the designated driver and have a couple of drunks in the car. Can you guarantee that their breath won’t set off this thing? Skin readings? Used any perfume or aftershave? Break a bottle of beer in your car? Will the car operate?
I’ve personnally heard MADD spokeswomen say that it should be against the law for any one who has had a single drink to drive. That’s their objective.
We have to give the boy a break as nobody else here agrees with him so he has to skip so many valid posts to answer just a few.
He disgusts me.
But it is a lie as you go site for him.
Settle down! No one here is advocating “getting away with drunk driving”. It’s just that “good intentions” from politicians ALWAYS means less freedom for me, and $ taken from my wallet.
Read between the lines. When you are arguing for the right not to have an alcohol interlock in your car, you're arguing for the right to drive drunk.
The cost shouldn't be a factor. While Breathalyzer based systems would cost about $1000, systems that measure BAC through the skin would be about $100. I've already said that this is a cheap insurance policy. It's passive and non-invasive.
And it's not an unreasonable search if the results aren't provided to law enforcement.
The margin of error on these machines is ±0.02% BAC -- so they're going to have to set them for 0.10% BAC anyway. Otherwise, people who are legal to drive are going to be prevented from driving, and there are going to be lawsuits.
Look at it from a car manufacturer's point of view. The technology is available, they're refusing to put it in the cars, and somebody gets kileld by a drunk driver who's driving one of their cars. Then the mother of the victim sues the manufacturer, because that's where the deep pockets are. The argument is that seince the technology was available, the manufacturer was negligent for not using it.
"That evil manufacturer just wanted to save a few bucks and now my baby is dead!" Picture a Cindy Sheehan look-alike. Cue the violin music.
Nobody needs that. It's going to cost jobs. Because the technology is available, it will have to be used.
Assuming that was the only brake technology failure ever recorded, and that no one would ever cut corners or overcharge on government mandated technology ever again, is as wise as assuming this will not fail and be disabled on a massive scale as they fail. It is socialist insanity.
He’s also totally wrong. In many states you can be convicted of drunk driving if you are in the car and have the keys. They car doesn’t have to be turned on and it doesn’t have to be in motion.
So by sitting in the car and blowing a .08 or greater you are proving your guilt.
Thank you, my FRiend.
My husband, as well as several of our lawyer friends, believe I should have been granted a law degree just because of osmosis. There’s more language included in the Delaware code that I have written than most of them :)
This is scary. Really scary.
You don't want to be free do you?
I can remove an eyeball with my pocket knife.
Because the technology is available, it will have to be used.
Don’t forget that in certain states, like Massachusetts, there isn’t a BAC law. The officer decides by evidence gathered at the scene, line walking etc. I guess Ted Kennedy won’t have to get one installed.
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.