Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[BoberFett]

I've been suggesting this forever. This should be mandated at the federal level with the steering wheel sensor technology. Anyone who argues otherwise has put a price on human life.

Sorry to tell you, but human life does have a price. It's not precious. There are over six billion of us. Your life and those of your loved ones may be precious to you, but in the grand scheme of things we're all insignificant.

 

[jonks]

human life does have a price. It's not precious.

again, not mutually exclusive things.

 

[xj0hnx]

The steering wheel sensor doesn't take breath readings it takes readings from your skin.

So the alcohol absorbed while using mouth wash doesn't travel through the same bodily systems as drinking a pint? /face palm.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Sorry to tell you, but human life does have a price. It's not precious. There are over six billion of us. Your life and those of your loved ones may be precious to you, but in the grand scheme of things we're all insignificant.

wow you just shattered my world. :awe:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So the alcohol absorbed while using mouth wash doesn't travel through the same bodily systems as drinking a pint? /face palm.

Thinking alcohol in mouthwash absorbed through the gums is enough to raise your BAC /face palm.

for the record Listerine allegedly has 26% alcohol by volume you would need to consume nearly 2 oz to get the same BAC as a single beer. If you are throwing back shots of listerine you have bigger problems than driving.

 

[Craig234]

This is not a good analogy, IMHO, Moonbeam. I would think the market would demand such a feature be included in such a product.

That's because you are a nutty ideologue who uses the word punishment not only to describe paying taxes, but for spending a few seconds blowing into a device to ensure you are not drunk before driving, completely abusing the word to try to change the issue into some paranoid state tyranny to fit your nutty ideology.

Your nutty ideology also says 'the market' will fix it, which it won't - just like the market 'fixed' the issue of seat belts, which cars lacked with high casualty rates for decades before a neurosurgeon acting on his own unrelated to the market finally did research on the benefits of safety devices and published the results, and the government forced them on a hostile public with a law requiring some devices in cars in 1959.

Yes, because the government knew best, which your ideology screams 'wrong!'

You have a delusion of what 'the market' does and does not do.

In fact, you do not care much about the issue of reducing drunk driving casualties; you are a slave to ideology.

How so? You mock the measure that could save a lot of lives, attacking the few seconds to blow into a device for 'punishment' that it's not, but you have NO alternative for it.

This is a good example how dangerous 'idiotology' is when a simple ideology is followed blindly, spitting in the face of common sense and ignoring the saving of many lives.

The 'invisible hand' of the marketplace is at the middle of this idiocy, a phrase coined by Adam Smith for something very different than the delusional use made of it by this ideology.

You have this ideology just teach you to hate government right or wrong, and to make up things about 'the market will do it, the government has no role to play'.

Not because you're doing it with bad intentions, but because you just can't get the difference between actual bad things from government, and good things, you want it all to be simple and bad so you can just attack it. You confuse fighting for the liberty of drunk drivers and all drivers not to blow for a few seconds with battling the tyranny of Stalin.

You can simply ignore the issue of casualties indulging your ideology. And that makes you a menace.

 

[wuliheron]

No I couldn't. Proof of required skill != proof of innocence. Unskilled until proven skilled != guilty until proven innocent. Stop making bad analogies and talk about the issue at hand.

But I guess you're all for guilty until proven innocent in the name of security for the proletariat of the state. Huzzah comrade! 😛

Dogma is the end of honesty and compassion, the beginning of confusion.
Lao Tzu

According to the government driving is a privilege and not a right. There's nothing about it in the constitution and "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to court cases. We insist that people prove they are competent before doing any number of things from practicing medicine to driving. You can split semantic hairs all you want, but a breathalyser merely proves you are competent to drive and driving is not considered a right. If you want to make it a right then I suggest a constitutional amendment is required.

 

[bamacre]

I suppose I made if off someone's ignore list. 😀

 

[xj0hnx]

that's because you are a nutty ideologue...

lofuckingcapital l!!!!

 

[xj0hnx]

Thinking alcohol in mouthwash absorbed through the gums is enough to raise your BAC /face palm.

for the record Listerine allegedly has 26% alcohol by volume you would need to consume nearly 2 oz to get the same BAC as a single beer. If you are throwing back shots of listerine you have bigger problems than driving.

It's not the gums, it's through the veins in ones mouth, especially under the tongue, which do in fact absorb enough to get it traveling through the blood stream, which is why there are quite a few medications that are used by placing them under the tongue.

 

[irishScott]

The steering wheel sensor doesn't take breath readings it takes readings from your skin.

And what if I wear gloves? Am I just not allowed to wear gloves while sober when my car's below freezing?

 

[irishScott]

are you always this narrow minded? Do you have doubts of all technology or just BAC sensors.

I think you would have a little more faith in our technological capabilities. We have achieved things orders of magnitude greater than stupid BAC sensor in a steering wheel. Seriously, there is more tech in the average cell phone.

I doubt any piece of technology until it's proven. If it has the capability to needlessly and uselessly shut down my vehicle my standards get downright nazi.

Just browse through any number of newegg reviews to find plenty of products from otherwise reputable companies that have failed after a few months or less of usage. High priced items too.

 

[CycloWizard]

That's because you are a nutty ideologue who uses the word punishment not only to describe paying taxes, but for spending a few seconds blowing into a device to ensure you are not drunk before driving, completely abusing the word to try to change the issue into some paranoid state tyranny to fit your nutty ideology.

Your nutty ideology also says 'the market' will fix it, which it won't - just like the market 'fixed' the issue of seat belts, which cars lacked with high casualty rates for decades before a neurosurgeon acting on his own unrelated to the market finally did research on the benefits of safety devices and published the results, and the government forced them on a hostile public with a law requiring some devices in cars in 1959.

Yes, because the government knew best, which your ideology screams 'wrong!'

You have a delusion of what 'the market' does and does not do.

In fact, you do not care much about the issue of reducing drunk driving casualties; you are a slave to ideology.

How so? You mock the measure that could save a lot of lives, attacking the few seconds to blow into a device for 'punishment' that it's not, but you have NO alternative for it.

This is a good example how dangerous 'idiotology' is when a simple ideology is followed blindly, spitting in the face of common sense and ignoring the saving of many lives.

The 'invisible hand' of the marketplace is at the middle of this idiocy, a phrase coined by Adam Smith for something very different than the delusional use made of it by this ideology.

You have this ideology just teach you to hate government right or wrong, and to make up things about 'the market will do it, the government has no role to play'.

Not because you're doing it with bad intentions, but because you just can't get the difference between actual bad things from government, and good things, you want it all to be simple and bad so you can just attack it. You confuse fighting for the liberty of drunk drivers and all drivers not to blow for a few seconds with battling the tyranny of Stalin.

You can simply ignore the issue of casualties indulging your ideology. And that makes you a menace.

Your argument is that libertarianism is wrong because the market didn't provide a non-existent technology. Your argument is that government is the solution because it can coerce people into behaviors, such as wearing seatbelts, all the while trumpeting freedom of choice in other cases. Real libertarianism is consistent in that it argues for freedom of choice in all cases. Your ideology seems to be that everyone must be protected by government from everyone, including themselves.* While you are free to disagree with the premise of libertarianism, it's hard to argue that it is logically consistent. Your ideology, on the other hand, seems to pick and choose in which cases government can and cannot limit behaviors of individuals to protect individuals from themselves and others.

*Except in circumstances where you think it's ok for people to act freely, potentially harming themselves and others.

 

[KGB]

I think they ought to level the playing field:

Rather than having a sensor to detect if one's blood alcohol level is under a certain threshold to start the vehicle, ... the ignition should engage only if the blood alcohol level EXCEEDS the limit. This way, everyone is shitfaced out there and no one has an artificial advantage.

 

[bamacre]

Your argument is that libertarianism is wrong because the market didn't provide a non-existent technology. Your argument is that government is the solution because it can coerce people into behaviors, such as wearing seatbelts, all the while trumpeting freedom of choice in other cases. Real libertarianism is consistent in that it argues for freedom of choice in all cases. Your ideology seems to be that everyone must be protected by government from everyone, including themselves.* While you are free to disagree with the premise of libertarianism, it's hard to argue that it is logically consistent. Your ideology, on the other hand, seems to pick and choose in which cases government can and cannot limit behaviors of individuals to protect individuals from themselves and others.

*Except in circumstances where you think it's ok for people to act freely, potentially harming themselves and others.

Craig can't be an ideologue, hypocrisy isn't an ideology.

 

[BoberFett]

wow you just shattered my world. :awe:

Happy to be of service. 😉

 

[boomerang]

I have to say that I had no clue that this thread would take off like this. I figured a couple of posts and off into obscurity.

 

[bfdd]

If you support this, then fuck you.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I guess those in favor are presuming people are guilty until proven otherwise before they start their cars.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's because you are a nutty ideologue who uses the word punishment not only to describe paying taxes, but for spending a few seconds blowing into a device to ensure you are not drunk before driving, completely abusing the word to try to change the issue into some paranoid state tyranny to fit your nutty ideology.

Your nutty ideology also says 'the market' will fix it, which it won't - just like the market 'fixed' the issue of seat belts, which cars lacked with high casualty rates for decades before a neurosurgeon acting on his own unrelated to the market finally did research on the benefits of safety devices and published the results, and the government forced them on a hostile public with a law requiring some devices in cars in 1959.

Yes, because the government knew best, which your ideology screams 'wrong!'

You have a delusion of what 'the market' does and does not do.

In fact, you do not care much about the issue of reducing drunk driving casualties; you are a slave to ideology.

How so? You mock the measure that could save a lot of lives, attacking the few seconds to blow into a device for 'punishment' that it's not, but you have NO alternative for it.

This is a good example how dangerous 'idiotology' is when a simple ideology is followed blindly, spitting in the face of common sense and ignoring the saving of many lives.

The 'invisible hand' of the marketplace is at the middle of this idiocy, a phrase coined by Adam Smith for something very different than the delusional use made of it by this ideology.

You have this ideology just teach you to hate government right or wrong, and to make up things about 'the market will do it, the government has no role to play'.

Not because you're doing it with bad intentions, but because you just can't get the difference between actual bad things from government, and good things, you want it all to be simple and bad so you can just attack it. You confuse fighting for the liberty of drunk drivers and all drivers not to blow for a few seconds with battling the tyranny of Stalin.

You can simply ignore the issue of casualties indulging your ideology. And that makes you a menace.

LMAO!!!! Damn you're one funny ass progressive g00ber.

 

[Fern]

Because California Emissions don't come standard on every car sold in the US?

No, unless something's changed recently.

I recently had to change the catalytic converter on my car. When you look up the parts to buy there are clearly different models required for CA cars.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Your argument is that libertarianism is wrong because the market didn't provide a non-existent technology.

No, it's not.

Your argument is that government is the solution because it can coerce people into behaviors, such as wearing seatbelts, all the while trumpeting freedom of choice in other cases.

Partly. Sometimes, this government power is a good thing, others bad. When you learn to tell the difference, you will do better.

Real libertarianism is consistent in that it argues for freedom of choice in all cases.

Consistency is a bad thing when it comes to putting consistency ahead of rationality in evaluating policy. This worship of consistency is an attribute of cultist ideology thinking.

The inability to recognize THIS IS A GOOD IDEA about something, over 'BUT IT VIOLATES MY IDEOLOGICAL DEMAND FOR SIMPLICITY. GOVERNMENT ALWAYS BAD!'

Your ideology seems to be that everyone must be protected by government from everyone, including themselves.*

See above, you can't tell the difference between cases that's good and bad.

While you are free to disagree with the premise of libertarianism, it's hard to argue that it is logically consistent.

See above on how 'logically consistent' is highly overrated by cultist ideologues over rationality. Translation of 'logically consistent': Ideologically pure and simple.

Your ideology, on the other hand, seems to pick and choose in which cases government can and cannot limit behaviors of individuals to protect individuals from themselves and others.

You beg the question. That's not ideology, it's rationality. "What works? Weigh the pros and cons RATHER than blindly follow a simple prescribed ideological doctrine".

These people who address policy not with "Will the policy's benefit of saving 10,000 lives outweigh any harms" but with "IT VIOLATES MY IDEOLOGY!!!" are a menace.

*Except in circumstances where you think it's ok for people to act freely, potentially harming themselves and others.

Yes, I support helmet laws while also supporting the right of stuntmen to take risks.

SHOCKING!!!! It's based on the relative costs and benefits without ideology, rather than "ALL GOVERNMENT RULES ARE BAD" or your straw man of "OUTLAW ALL UNSAFE".

You should learn what "democracy" is someday, where people develop such opinions and are the rulers of the country to pass laws that follow them.

In the meantime, talking with Libertarians about things like the device of this thread is about as entertaining and useful as talking to Mormons about the rights of gays.

The talk isn't about the issues, just them spouting their ideology/doctrines.

 

[Craig234]

I guess those in favor are presuming people are guilty until proven otherwise before they start their cars.

More idiocy.

It's 'presuming people are not meeting the driver's license standards' to require them to prove they are before they can drive. They should be able to have that assumed.

Just as much as they should be 'assumed sober' and not have to spend a few seconds proving they're sober.

Banks should not 'presume people' are guilty of not having the collateral for loans and require them to prove it. Police forces should not 'presume officers' have not kept their shooting skills and understanding of the law up to standards by requiring them to prove it periodically. No producer of consumer goods or food should have flaws presumed in their product by having any inspections. No one who wants to be a doctor should be presumed to not have learned all the things theh should to meet standards by requiring testing.

It really shows the irrational ideology some have that they can't understand why having the guy who would slam head on to you while drunk not be able to is worth a few seconds.

Why? It's a GOVERNMENT RULE so it's BAD!!!!! The word idiocy is insufficient.

 

[bfdd]

Of course Craig is for this. He's a fucking douche bag who wants to control everyones lives. Why do you live in so much fear Craig?

 

[Craig234]

If you support this, then fuck you.

If you support a continuation of the drunk driving casualties and oppose this very mild measure to greatly reduce them, back at you.