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 ...
Valid point...but...who gets sued if the device fails to operate properly even if it was not tampered with?
Or, who gets sued when the device interrupts the starter on a false positive and someone dies as a result of transportation being out-of-service?
In the face of all these questions and your statement, it looks as if the only parties who will benefit from this legislation becoming law will be the lawyers. It's a win-win for them.
“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.”
I don’t believe that for a minute. Do you have any proof that the OEM’s are supporting installation of these devices? I doubt that they would want to open themselves up to the liability involved....
I agree - why would OEMs want to get involved in this at all? If they do "support" it, it would be because they are given something in return.
Just get it within +/- .01 or so and put the disclaimer right there on the box.
The cops’ devices have a margin of error in that range, and they stand up just fine in court.
I’ll trust God’s assessment over yours.
And, I’ll put more stock in the family members’ opinions—those who know very painfully the truth of what I write.
DENIAL is not a good survival habit.
You’re whacked. There is no truth in the ramblings of an ignorant kook.
You’re whacked. There is no truth in the ramblings of an ignorant kook.
Well, I guess that my friend, who was stopped in morning rush hour traffic and got rear ended by a sober person that was texting, is less dead than those folks involved in the accidents you describe.
The fact is that in our society today, MADD has made the general activity of driving more dangerous than it should be. By focusing ONLY on drinking and driving, our population now considers that to be the only dangerous driving, resulting in more carelessness by people in general. I would be willing to bet that MADD has cost more lives (as well as law enforcement and legislators) by focusing ONLY on alcohol than they have saved. But, I know there are no stats to prove my assertion and there never will be. It would be political suicide.
All car wrecks should be persued aggressively and the “at fault” driver should be subject to the full force of the law. If ANY driver causes personal or property damage to another, they should be treated equally under the law. That is the way to make the roads truly safer. But alas, where is the power in that?
“the fellow in my alcohol group . .”
Ah-ha, and there it is. A personal stake in this type of legislation. Now your postings make a little more sense.
I do believe you are projcting by reading far more into what is being said that is meant.
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.
Thanks to the John Edwards lawsuit happy mentality of our society...........
I love that denial crap you 12-steppers throw around. I could claim you are a child rapist, and the more you deny it, the more guilty you are. I rmember this crap from history, ala the Salem Witch Trials.
The results are recorded and transmitted in Delaware. It is then up to the driver to prove the device malfunctioned and that he/she was not drinking.
I’m typically very reluctant to push the abuse button.
I think I may have pushed it in such matters maybe two times in all these years.
However, at some point, the personal assaults are simply . . . indicative of the mentality that would even JUST RISK
trashing the lives of unknown innocents in the name of the so called freedom to drive drunk.
Your vindictive personal assaults are noted.
Actually, I haven’t worked formally in alcohol treatment for more than 20 years.
You are WRONG yet again.
The fact remains . . .
The chronic, standard alcholic DENIAL addiction is not a good survival habit.
Yes, it is considered a "factor" and if you are killed by that bus it is considered in the number of alcholo related traffic fatalities.
And if you happened to have been smoking a cigarette when you weere hit by the bus, your death would also be added to the list of "smoking-related" deaths.
Aren't government numbers/lists just so much fun?
You are spouting kooky stuff, I call it like i see it. It’s no personal attack, it’s the truth, as much as you may want to deny it. You are in la-la land, not dealing in reality. Sorry. Go ahead, hit abuse, i’ve done nothing wrong.
Any doubt this is coming.
With MADD’s goal being the prohibition of public sales of alcohol in bars and clubs, and to restrict it only to homes, this helps that.
Fine.
They got smoking outta bars, time for the alcohol now.
Then all they’ll have left is the food.
Inshallah, Salaam Aleikum Brother bin Blair.
Yeah, it up the statistic numbers.
The lower the BAC, the less meaning or value it has. I had blood work done back in the fall. My BAC was .04, the bloodwork was done at 9:00am. I had not consumed so much as a glass of wine or a beer in nearly a week, yet here I was with a BAC at half the legal limit.
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.