Read between the lines. 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.
The cost shouldn't be a factor. While Breathalyzer based systems would cost about $1000, systems that measure BAC through the skin would be about $100. I've already said that this is a cheap insurance policy. It's passive and non-invasive.
And it's not an unreasonable search if the results aren't provided to law enforcement.
The margin of error on these machines is ±0.02% BAC -- so they're going to have to set them for 0.10% BAC anyway. Otherwise, people who are legal to drive are going to be prevented from driving, and there are going to be lawsuits.
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.
"That evil manufacturer just wanted to save a few bucks and now my baby is dead!" Picture a Cindy Sheehan look-alike. Cue the violin music.
Nobody needs that. It's going to cost jobs. Because the technology is available, it will have to be used.
This is scary. Really scary.
You don't want to be free do you?
I can remove an eyeball with my pocket knife.
Because the technology is available, it will have to be used.
“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.
Great logic - if you argue for the right not to have a government observer in your house to watch your interactions with your children then you're arguing for the right to abuse children.
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 sure hope theres a special place in Hell for ambulance chasers...
I sure hope theres a special place in Hell for ambulance chasers...