Alcohol Nanny Breathalyzers

American Spectator ^ | 07 aug 07 | Eric Peters

[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.

[Eric Blair 2084]

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 . . . ???

You might have missed this. In the capitol of the USA, the beacon of freedom, the legal limit is 0.01.

Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle

"...little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."

[Eric Blair 2084]

When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

[Sonny M]

Well, a specific product marketed as “Beat the Breathalyzer in your car”, probably not much. But I figure if say Ziplock can take advantage of the drug market, then the already existing canned air market (big at cleaning dust out of computers) can take advantage of it as well. Then there’s the portable air compressor market, for filling up tires and other inflatable things... who knows even your canned breath freshener could work.

To be honest and not BS ya, the first thing I was thinking was those air cans that we use to clean keyboards, and then offshoots, I think there is a huge market potential on beating this thing.

To be honest, laws like this create underground markets, and the very first thing I thought of (and yes, shame on me) was how much money I could make, exploiting this.

[IIntense]

Okay. I haven't done any research on MADD's ultimate plot to outlaw alcohol totally. It's already been tried, as we know. It didn't work then. Why should we believe folks are going to react any differently now?

Prohibition was a failure in the '20s. It will be a failure today.

As to a finger sensor on a refrigerator, I see this as a great opportunity for an ambitious would-be entreprenaur to bring back and market the icebox of the 40's and previous years. The later generations can experience history as they witness "the iceman" delivering those big chunks to every house.

What could beat that? Dad and Mom enjoying a cold beer and the kids living a past era.

If Al Gore approves coal as energy-saving, children of this century won't just read about the coal trucks which deposited this home-heating product directly into home basement coal bins via chutes. They will have the fun of watching the noisy procedure as they sit on nearby steps.

Not to worry.

[Maurice Tift]

The devil's in the details, though.

Someday, we'll have cars that just don't start at all!

[MaxMax]

(1) Park your auto at home
(2) Open the hood
(3) Remove the positive battery cable for five minutes
(4) Have a beer while you wait
(5) Reconnect the battery cable
(6) Check engine light should be off, and reset

The check engine light is there for oil changes and transmission fluid changes.
It's a reminder that you need service. But, it also could indicate
that there may be a problem with your oxygen sensors which is the most
common problem "YET" usually not the actual problem.

Reset your Check engine light and if it comes back on over a few days,
then you'll know that it's not just a reset dilemma.

/Salute

[IIntense]

...motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws.

Tho I don't drive a motorcyle, I am wary of driving near them. In truth, they have little protection around them. If they are involved in an accident (avoidable or not) with a car, truck, semi, etc., the cyclist without a helmet risks head injuries, if he survives at all.

Seat belts are also meant to prevent greater injury. Do I feel like buckling up every time I get behind the wheel? NO.When it became a law, I reluctantly obeyed it. I don't need/want to get stopped by a cop.

While driving home from a doctor's office in '03, my car was slammed so hard that it was knocked off the road and into the corner property. The car was totalled. Without the seatbelt around me, I may have suffered greater injury than I did. My right foot jammed into something on the car floor. Removing my shoe an hour or so later, it immediately began to swell. X-rays showed nothing broken but the discoloration and soreness for several years. No big deal. Did that seat belt protect me from worse damage? Who can say...but I have a better sense of why I use it, though I'd love to jump in the car without giving a thought to seat belts.

Just as important to me, I never want to be involved in an accident, and in particular one in which the other driver is seriously injured because he/she did not use a seat belt or, as a cyclist, a helmet. I would suffer with grief, guilt and pain til my dying day.

Do all of us have a moral obligation to use available protections when we go out on the road with other drivers? Normal, thinking people never want to be involved in a situation where someone else is maimed or killed.

[IIntense]

...device that prevents cell phones from functioning...

I'm reading this as hyperbole. What, if any, driving requirements make sense to you? Seriously.

[IslandJeff]

BFL

[IIntense]

Looks like I'll be driving the old '79 ford pickup for a long time!

I hear you. I value the two "commodes" in our house the same way. They were installed before the "environmental" watersavers became the new law.

They give new meaning to "worship the porcelain goddess."

[IIntense]

Hearing you. So when will the revolution begin?

[IIntense]

I'm a member of the Free Republic legal team.

Please accept my admiration for your success in fighting this lawsuit.

[IIntense]

Your life is your own...

Yes and no. If I decide to commit suicide, for example, what about the grief, loss, devastation, anger, depression...you name it...my action will bring on my husband, children and grandchildren.

If a car accident occurs between you and me, and a seatbelt would/may have saved either one of us from serious injury or death, wouldn't that be a sensible precaution?

Suppose you advocated and used a seatbelt and got into an accident with me, who refused to use it. Maybe, I am seriously injured or die, due to not wearing a seatbelt. My mistake. Yet you have to live with the fact that an accident you were involved in permanently injured or killed the other party.

You wore a seatbelt; I did not. Why should you live with the guilt (justified or not).

You may think you would feel no guilt but I wonder how many would think otherwise.

[Clam Digger]

Sorry for your loss.

50% of my close friends I grew up were killed killed by busses. I dmenad all be busses be removed from the road immediately!

[Clam Digger]

I used to think you were one of FR’s best posters, but clearly you are no more than a kook.

[Bernard]

And I have the perfect brand name for the new device - The “Kennedyometer”! Send the royalty check to ...

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

I’m a member of the Free Republic legal team.

“Please accept my admiration for your success in fighting this lawsuit.”

That is Bryan’s work, not mine. I agree that his effort was admirable.

[WannabeTurk]

I think this is a great idea, but for the average joe and drunks. Most people arrested for DUI in this country do not purposefully and premeditatively drive drunk. They usually have their thought process clouded from being inebriated. Others drive over the legal limit unknowingly because they feel sober but are just over the limit and do not know it. Having breathilizer built into ever car built is a win-win for everyone.

[rellimpank]

—wow—guess we really talked that over-—

[WannabeTurk]

My brother was killed by someone speeding sober. Let's give the death penalty to anyone who speeds.

Get over yourself.