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 ...
And with great fanfare and pompous speeches our politicians and the mad MADD group lowered the "drunk" BAC to .08. That really solved the problem of drunk driving, didn't it?
During the frenzy to enact this last fiasco there was a local fatal accident where the driver has a BAC of something in the range of 2. something. A MADD spokesperson actually said that that was the reason we needed to lower the allowable BAC. With that kind of "thinking" we don't need these people deciding what we need.
It'll sure bollox things up out at the deer lease.
I generally despise many activists because they're the political equivalent of herpes.
Thou hast proffered and excellent tag line. Consider it stolen... :-)
As long as it doesn’t prevent people who are under the legal limit from operating a motor vehicle, I don’t think it’s a bad idea.
Hey, as long as you, in your infinite wisdom, pony up the dough for it, I'll buy into the idea...
Oh, does it not sound as good if it isn't other peoples money?
I should have included a sarcasm tag.
The bottom line is that people do stupid things behind the wheel, and no amount of legislation can prevent that.
But when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, he doesn't just endanger himself. He endangers everybody on the road.
Then if you consider the risk that great, punish accordingly. This idea is about as bad as the touchy feely but idiotic child molester registration laws. Those laws enable some worthless politicians to get some votes while essentially conducting a social experiment utilizing the public at larges children as objective guinea pigs (born out by the fact that several of these registerees have killed and molested subsequent to release).
You're essentially saying that this great idea is going to prevent X numbers of deaths, while getting the public at large to pony up for it and ignoring the fact that a repeat DUI offender is going to either avoid buying a car with the device in it like the plague or find a means to disable or fool it.
Additionally, you and other supporters will be completely oblivious to the unintended consequences that will trickle in over time. On I can think of is the increase over time, as the new vehicles saturate the market, of older car drivers getting repeatedly pulled over on suspicion of DUI merely for the fact that they're driving a car without the device.
It's not a ridiculous position to take for the prior poster to say your conservative credentials should be revoked either. It's not one small idiotic idea that got us where we are now, it's thousands of them, from a myriad of activist do-gooder groups et. al. slowly grinding us down.
That is the function of the progressive tax and the earned income credit.
Good thread, btw. Outed some rats, that’s for sure.
lol...consider it a gift...
Any company that went into that business would be sued into oblivion the first time a drunk driver with a disabled device killed someone.
As illustration . . .
You have yet to deal with the issue of . . .
YOUR 5-7 closest loved ones . . .
crunched in a burning vehicle . . . trapped . . . taking 3-4 very painful hours to die of their injuries and burns . . .
God forbid . . .
Are you telling me you would STILL feel the same way about alcohol?
Yes, there are hypocrisies abounding in our era and lives.
Nevertheless, alcohol is super deadly on the highway.
I’m not for putting the rest of us in straight jackets to make the highways safer.
But something reasonable . . . would be reasonable compared to the deadly mayhem we have.
In the four corners area, the Dine/Navajos have a horrid time with alcohol. It’s kind of . . . bumper cars and . . . ROAD RAGE/Indy 500 all rolled into one.
It sounds like you are sooooooooooooooo extremely obsessive about one single illegal freedom—to drink alcohol to excess—as the supreme symbol of
AMERICAN FREEDOMS and way of life.
That’s real sweet.
Painful burning death and mayhem is now next to the flag and apple pie as the supreme symbols of AMERICAN FREEDOMS.
Guess I didn’t get that memo.
It is time to unmake the nanny state.
You posted: Please see my post #25.........these things are notorious for failure. Failure of one of these can result in fatalities.
***
I’m not sure where I come down on these alcohol detectors, but the fact that they might fail is not a good enough reason, in my mind, to reject the idea. I have brakes on my car, and brakes fail sometimes. Engines fail, too. As I understand this device, it would just power down the car. All you do is pull over, just like you would anytime your engine cuts out. It would sure be a pain, but I don’t think it is any more dangerous than having a flat tire.
This doesn’t mean I approve of the system. I am not sure yet.
It's also a money-making scam and the original founder will have nothing to do with it.
“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.”
No, when we argue against the stupidity of an alcohol interlock in our cars (which it has yet to be proven can be technically implemented in any reasonably reliable and non-invasive way), we’re arguing for our right not to have to prove, to a machine or anyone else, that we’re not drunk, before we can start the car. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? This is the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a while - even dumber than the mandatory vehicle stability control systems, which will undoubtedly add even more to the expense of modern cars, especially considering how many cars are currently sold without even so much as ABS. Do we have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator, or an assumption of incompetence and criminal stupidity for everyone?
BTW, what kind of “passive and non-invasive” system can measure blood alcohol levels? For 3 or 4 months (at least) a year up here in the northern climes the only exposed skin on anyone getting into their car is on their face. I wouldn’t call anything reaching out to “touch” my face to get a reading, “passive” or “non-invasive”, and requiring me to expose the inside of my wrist or elbow in sub-freezing temperatures doesn’t either.
Well, in any case, I’m glad to see that you’ve only found a couple of fellow nanny-staters who agree with this crackpot scheme of yours on this supposedly conservative forum.
This is about civil liberties, not alcohol. They could institute the cheek-spreading policy just as easily, because someone somewhere has cause a car crash while transporting drugs in their rectum.
This idea is a ridiculous trampling of civil liberties, despite your previous experience with lowlife alcoholics who would drive. that certainly doesn't make up the vast majority of drivers and is DEFINITELY not a reason to proclaim everyone guilty.
Quit being a dope. This idea SUCKS.
I've thought about that too. I think the problem is the huge legal liability that such a device would carry. If it reported that a person was .07 and then later the person was in an accident and blew .08 then anyone hurt in that accident would go after then device maker as well.
They have road blocks aka 'sobriety" check points now. Do you really think that if these devices are installed that the road blocks will go away? I think not.
LOL, more proof of your ignorance! It is nt illegal to drink alcohol, even to excess. Yes, it's now illegal to drive after doing so, but that's not what you said, and I don't think it's how you want things to be. I'd bet you wnt total prohibition based on your sad little experiences.
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.