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 ...
You have been very selective as to the posts that you respond to.
How about an ex-con leaves a bar far too drunk to start his own car so he jacks you and your car and has you drive him around until he is sober enough to kill you and take your car?
It is never a good sign on a conservative site to have everyone else disagree with you.
Never.
I do not want to pick on FR, but some of the non-conservatives who pretend to be conservatives here really irk me.
It is inevitable. Do your homework. They mandated seat belts, anti-lock brakes and air bags. The new Electronic Stability Program (ESP), which takes anti-lock brakes one step farther and actually takes control of both steering and brakes when the car starts to fishtail, is already required for the 2009 model year. It will bring the car to a stop in a straight line, even if you're driving on ice.
The good news is that it's being designed by American engineers for American companies. Not German, not Japanese and Americans will hold the worldwide patents.
The car is definitely your property. But the road has to be shared with a lot of people who aren't drunk.
“but anti-lock brakes have already saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Hundreds of thousands? Thats at least 4 years of all traffic deaths. Are you sure its not millions?
Who wants to be that MADD accepted a financial donation for this interlock device.
I remember their sales personel working the judges to “require” them in sentencing. (especially around election time...)
It’s a conservative estimate.
Honestly, I don’t know what’s going on here. Freepers are arguing for the right to drive drunk. There’s a concept called “ordered liberty,” and I don’t think some of the people on this thread fully understand it.
Reuters has reported that 10 people filed a class action suit against General Motors and LucasVarity, alleging that the companies knew about problems with an anti-lock brake system (ABS) they were selling, but didn't fix them or warn consumers. The suit involves thousands of GM vehicles built with Kelsey-Hayes anti-lock brake systems between 1989 and 1995, and was filed in a Manhattan federal court on behalf of all owners of such vehicles. Kelsey-Hayes is a unit of LucasVarity, GM's co-defendant in the suit.
The lawsuit alleges that GM and LucasVarity knew about severe problems with the quality and reliability of the Kelsey-Hayes ABS from at least 1990, but never satisfactorily resolved the problems, or warned consumers about them. The suit says that consumers bought the vehicles with the bad ABS after reading advertisements and promotional materials that stressed quality and safety.
The lawsuit says that the Kelsey-Hayes ABS is designed so the brake pedal falls rapidly to the floor of the vehicle during hard or emergency braking situations, giving the appearance of complete brake failure, which leads to a "foreseable panic reaction" that has caused and will continue to cause accidents.
The suit indicates that internal documents show GM acknowleged the "pedal to the floor" phenomenon, stating it gives the "perception" of the total loss of brakes.
A spokesman for General Motors said the company had no comment yet, as it has not yet seen the suit.
Paul Dever -- The Auto Channel
And I will repeat what you chose not to quote me on........
It will become mandated by the government because of people like you.
I have done my homework, I know what people like you have done to the rest of us.
I don’t drive after I’ve been drinking, so why in the heck should I have to pay extra for a car to make nanny staters like you happy?
And those “American engineers” you’re so thrilled about are union employees that hate the concept of personal responsibility. I’m self-employed, have been for 20 years, I apparently know more about that concept than they or you. I chose not to become a lawyer because I have a great deal of self-respect.
You want to advocate these for people who have been convicted of a drunk driving offense, fine, but not for everyone every time they start their car.
“The car is definitely your property. But the road has to be shared with a lot of people who aren’t drunk.”
But cars can be used on private property.
You still haven’t responded to the issue of proving innocence. Drunk driving is a problem but has been drastically reduced. Forcing law abiding people to prove they are not guilty is not American.
Using anti-lock brakes and other features is not an equal comparison. Its not a crime to have regular breaks or no electronic stability control.
SNORT! Line of the week material right there!
There's the problem. Kelsey-Hayes is a bargain basement parts manufacturer. GM was trying to save a few bucks and it's going to end up costing them millions. There are parts manufacturers out there who are far more reliable. They're more expensive but when it comes to something like brakes, they're well worth it.
The original inventors of anti-lock brakes, for example, have never even been sued -- because the brakes they build are quality brakes.
No. Wrong again. Bad driving is the number one cause of fatalaties. Drunk or sober, fast or slow, makeup applying or kid swatting, cell phone using or text messaging.
Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I never stated that cell phone users cause more deaths than drunk drivers (though I believe it, and believe the statistics lie).
“...these will keep the purchase price of a car reasonable.”
Ahh! The government dictating the reasonable price of goods!
I LOVE IT!
Wait—what this...isn’t DU? Oh No! I’m posting in the wrong website!
It’s a hundred million billion, I tell you! Bogus numbers and false claims abound on this thread in order to push for more nanny-state crap.
“It’s a conservative estimate.”
Conservative? Its an outlandishly high estimate.
“Honestly, I don’t know what’s going on here. Freepers are arguing for the right to drive drunk. There’s a concept called “ordered liberty,” and I don’t think some of the people on this thread fully understand it.”
No they aren’t arguing for the right to drive drunk. Nobody is saying drunk driving is good or right. We are saying we shouldn’t have to prove our innocence and that the govt does not have the right to force these types of changes.
American engineers have done a great job in assisting in the death of the once thriving American auto industry. That more nanny-engineering in the American auto industry is good or bad news is to be seen.
From my point of view, we should just bury drunk drivers under a jail somewhere and stop trying to make morons smart with technology.
Yes, and a tiny handful of women get abortions because their lives are in danger, or because of rape or incest. You sound like the Feminazis who believe that this tiny handful of cases justifies keeping abortion legal as a form of birth control. They focus on the weirdest, most far-out cases and pretend that those cases are typical. The typical driver does not limit his driving to private property.
You still haven’t responded to the issue of proving innocence.
I responded. You must have missed this response: if the interlock system had a transmitter, and was programmed to transmit the BAC along with a copy of the driver's license and a description of the car to every cop patrolling the area, you might have a point.
But it doesn't do that. It just prevents you from driving drunk.
“Bogus numbers and false claims?!?”
Forgive me for polishing off an old chestnut...
“The average American has one breast and one testicle.”
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.