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 ...
With all the typos eye make, I would fale the MAVIS BEACON typing tutor typing test. And my blood alcholo lvel is always at a .0..0.
/typo tease
They undoubtedly kill many more people than the drunks do.
= = =
Actually, NO.
All the stats I’ve seen indicate otherwise.
You have stats proving your point? Let’s see them? Where’s the link? Where’s the study?
Alcohol . . . influenced pontifications on this thread do not impress me in the slightest.
How many beers have you had tonight? You’re the only one on the thread who has accidentally posted the same reply twice.
Some are advocating the sleepiness thing be incorporated as well . . .
a significant chunk of deaths do occur from that.
However,
sleepiness on the road is not full of denial; has SOME chance of the rumble strips waking one up . . . has some better odds than a drunk driver.
But it’s still a bad scene.
What are you on? And can it be detected by some ignition deterring device?
I’d feel safer alongside a good driving buddy with 8 beers in him than with someone like you. You’d probably brake for a squirrel and cause a 4 car pile-up.
A designated driver takes on new meaning.
DRUNKS HAVE BROUGHT ALL OF US TO THIS SAD STATE.
I’m not greatly concerned at their inconvenience or personal hazards given their selfish thoughtlessness at putting all the rest of our lives at risk day in and day out on the highway.
I don’t buy into your tidy little boxed dichotomy.
How many drunk caused crashes have you helped clean up?
How many loved ones have you lost to a drunk?
Then we can talk.
I’m for personal responsibility.
Drunks have none.
I’m for serious penalties. Drunks are immune to even stiff penalties.
They will drive without a license.
They will go to jail repeatedly with dead folks between each sentencing.
Your rational fails the reality test.
None.
I guess you didn’t read my posts.
Your feeling of safety would be about as sane and sensible as
the fellow in my alcohol group . . . after 9 DUI’s
who said first off:
I DON’T NEED TO BE HERE, I DON’T HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM . . . when folks had been seriously injured for life from his drunk driving.
Very impressive rational, there.
But not to me.
BTW, I have a question for you . . .
In an average month . . . how many 24 hour periods go by wherein you consume only 2 or less alcoholic beverages per 24 hours?
I agree that is why all 50 states agreed to raise the drinking age for beer to 21 because they would lose any Federal funding for highways. It’s blackmail.
Since reducing deaths are the goal, how many deaths could be prevented by NOT allowing government the power to micro manage every moment of our lives?
Being as the social systems that can require by force constant testing of the entire population to prove innocence and compliance with the law are extreme socialist tyrannies, ie Soviet Russia, communist China, Nazi Germany, we can see that the government intervention necessary to save hundreds of thousands from drunk drivers actually was used to murder hundreds of millions in gulags, reeducation and concentration camps, and, oops, Russia and Germany didn't stop the drunk drivers. It seems that this kind of government power never works out as promised, only as planned.
Who said "useful idiots"?
I was being facetious. I did read your posts.
In a bizarre way, I’m actually on your side . Jesus would consider my thoughts to be a sin. Call it Schadenfreude (taking pleasure in the misery of others, as someone who has taken psych classes you know the definition but others here don’t).
As many nicotine junkies know, it is the height of hypocrisy that when we go to a ballgame we are not allowed to smoke ANYWHERE. “Health reasons”. Right.
Meanwhile, it is perfectly OK for the fans in our section to imbibe 11 24 oz. beers each and consume 5 hot dogs and cheese fries per person. BAC of .23 and 8,900 calories and 2,345 mg of sodium.
Keep up the good work. Many smokers want to see these new “criminals” dragged off into the same concentration camp that smokers are in. We need the company. Misery loves it.
Anything I can do to help speed the process and the railcars along, please let me know.
Great point. Citizens who are unfortunate enough to live in a left wing Totalitarian state invariably turn to Vodka to deal with it like they did in the old Soviet Union.
You might know this, but the USSR banned Vodka in 1986 when it was on it's last legs. Seems that the proletariet didn't care if they were too drunk to go to work the next day. The Gubmint would take care of them anyway. Why bother? The only way to stay sane and numb the pain of living in a Authoritarian regime like that is to get plastered.
I fear that is where we are heading here in America.
Bizzarroworld.
What is the “legal limit?” It used to be 0.15, then 0.12, then 0.10, now 0.08, next, 0.05 and after that . . . ???
And who puts these statistics together? What is a “factor”? If I get run over by a bus but I have alcohol in my blood, it is considered a “factor,” even if not a causal factor. These highway statistics are collected by an agency with an agenda and do not reflect reality. Talking on a cell phone is supposedly equivalent to driving drunk (but at what limit, I wonder? They never say). Driving while sleepy is equivalent to driving drunk. Driving while carrying on a conversation with someone in the care is equivalent to driving drunk. But those offences won’t cost you $5,000 in penalties and fines, at least not yet. Let’s figure out what really causes highway fatalities and take steps to reduce them rather than using “drunk drivers” as a way to fatten law enforcement and insurance company coffers. Or, we could all move to Virginia and enjoy their wonderful system of fines.
OK, let me just change the scenario...
This guy is out camping in the middle of nowhere, he doesn't plan on leaving for 2 more days. he is having a good time, fishing, drinking beer etc...Winds pickup, and wammo, massive wildfire moving fast...He is found dead two days later, burned to death. Keys were still in the ignition, he's behind the wheel burned to death.
There are literally thousand of other scenarios where people would be injured or killed if not able to start their vehicle immediately.
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.