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 ...
Big Brother is hard at work 24/7.
What’s to stop me drinking after I start the car?
That's a bogus argument. If the interlock device had a radio transmitter, and if it was designed to transmit your BAC, a copy of your driver's license and a description of your car to all police officers patrolling the area, you would have a point.
But it doesn't. It just prevents you from driving while drunk, and endangering yourself and other people.
Nanny State PING
These things are notoriously failure ridden.
A friend of ours opted to have one installed in his vehicle as part of his sentence for a 1st offender DUI charge. It danged near killed him and his father when it decided to shut off his vehicle of its own accord on I-95 near Wilmington, DE. The man had not had a drink in 6 months at that point. At least once a week he had to make a call because the thing malfunctioned.
MADD used to be a great organization, they now are not. They are more interested in money than in public safety. They are also totally controlled by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Here’s some more of this crap again.....
That really worked out so well in the '20's, dinnit?
Back then we the people could own guns. When the New prohibition takes effect, the second ammendment will be no more than a memory. Probably in about 2-5 years.
Good question. I really don't have an answer. And I'm sure it isn't just Wyoming.
How about some device that stops people who are eating Double Whoppers, putting on mascara, smacking backseat kids, or TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES from operating motor vehicles?
They undoubtedly kill many more people than the drunks do.
How about just bad driving “shut down” devices? If you can’t parallel park, the car shuts down. If you dawdle in the left lane of the interstate 10 mph under the speed limit, the car shuts down.
How about speeding “shut down” devices? If the car recognizes the microchip on the speed limit sign and you are over the limit - it slowly creeps to a stop and you await the State Trooper to have you sign your ticket or else he won’t reactivate your car.
Posts like yours drive me insane. Where does it stop with you people? Why don’t you leave the rest of us the hell alone?
“But when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, he doesn’t just endanger himself. He endangers everybody on the road.”
Thats true. So why are you focused on the majority that aren’t drunk?
Why not just take a blood sample to confirm the drivers arent on drugs too. And a reaction test to ensure they arent sleepy. And perhaps a bladder test to make sure they arent distracted by having to urinate.
Bullcrap, an ashtray cost $400.
‘How about speeding “shut down” devices? If the car recognizes the microchip on the speed limit sign and you are over the limit - it slowly creeps to a stop and you await the State Trooper to have you sign your ticket or else he won’t reactivate your car.”
Thats a good idea, I think I’ll patent that. Would put all those red light cameras to shame for revenue generation.
Apparently you're an anarchist. You seem to believe that there should be no laws, and no protective devices, because they get in the way of your "liberty."
If your "liberty" means allowing you to drive drunk and endanger the lives of everyone on the highway, I think you need to reconsider what "liberty" means to you.
I'm all for them! Since I stopped going to bars due to the smoking bans and my seat has been taken up by some self righteous nico-nazi, let him deal with the new nanny state......LOL!
Or keep the car running while you’re at the bar.. And what about remote starters? You know, the ones that let you start the car when its like 10 below and you’re still in your PJ’s getting ready for work?
hypothetical:
What if I'm out in the woods fishing on my own property and have had a few beers, being over the "legal limit". I begin to have chest pains and want to get in the truck and drive to my house to call 911, or to have my wife drive me to the hospital. Suddenly my car won't start because I've been drinking and I die of a heart attack.
Thanks allot for your nanny state ideas and devices.
ONE of the STUPIDEST thoughts I've read all year.
“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.”
Nanny poster. Sure we need more government interference in our lives. No cigarettes, no trans fats, and now cars that won’t start after I just gargled with Listerine before I left the house.
Incorrect. Drunk drivers are the Number One cause of fatalities. But there is a law that forbids talking on a cell phone while driving, unless you have one of the "no hands" varieties.
The design engineers can only go so far in attempting to protect us from the morons out there. This isn't a bad idea.
Apparently you are an idiot. Where does this kind of crap end. Should we all bend over and have our anus's checked because we could be hiding drugs? My analogy is a spot on comparison to what you propose, which is a disgusting trampling of liberties with a presumtion of guilt.
Nice knowing you survived here this long, but now you've been outted, commie.
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.