Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[MotF Bane]

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

Oh what a bunch of bullshit. Another little bit of safety, another erosion of personal rights, and you start salivating with delight at the idea.

 

[MotF Bane]

If you support this, then fuck you.

Pretty much, it's absolutely indefensible to anything less than a totalitarian lunatic.

 

[bfdd]

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

1500 people died in 06 due to alcohol related accidents. In a state of 30 million, that's quite insignificant and less than 1/3rd of total accident fatalities. It sounds like you have an irrational fear of others and wish to control those around you by any means necessary because you fear for your life every waking second. Sounds like you're a giant fucking pussy.

Seriously Craig, fuck you and your totalitarian bullshit you spout in almost every goddamn thread you come in.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The arguments so far are mostly arguments of principle, and I don't find those persuasive in the slightest.

(First wanna say the OP's link is not working for me. So, I can't read the article.)

I think a number of practical arguments against this proposal have been made. And in one or two more.

First, these things are costly.

What do we do about cars that have already been manufactured without them?

Repeat drunk drivers seem to be the concern here. If so, the obvious answer is to require those convicted to have these devices installed. Seems like tremendous overkill to require all drivers to have these devices.

These devices can be problematic, potentially danger causing.

If they become widespread, methods to circumvent them will become widespread. Most drunk driver types inconvenienced by them could circumvent them, thereby eliminating their purpose.

One big problem in the DUI area is prescription drugs. This is of no help there anyway.

Good intentions are responsible for many bad ideas.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

That link evidently is dead and specifically dealt with California.

In Googling for a replacement it appears that there is a push on the national level for this with bi-partisan support. Let's hope this dies a permanent death. We don't need it and we certainly can't afford it which of course makes it immensely appealing to progressives. Fortunately, we've really got them on the run now.


The Blow 'N' Go Bill

I know you'll all like the title of the article.

Edit: For anyone that may be wondering, I've uh, made up my mind on the issue.

 

[boomerang]

1500 people died in 06 due to alcohol related accidents. In a state of 30 million, that's quite insignificant and less than 1/3rd of total accident fatalities. It sounds like you have an irrational fear of others and wish to control those around you by any means necessary because you fear for your life every waking second. Sounds like you're a giant fucking pussy.

Seriously Craig, fuck you and your totalitarian bullshit you spout in almost every goddamn thread you come in.

Control over others to help assuage their fears is at the very heart of progressivism. Very astute observation. A big thumbs up for calling it like you see it - in all aspects. :thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

No, it's not.



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



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!'



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



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



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.



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.

You're a lying douchebag at best. I have never once seen you make any argument against government involvement in anything. Every statement you make in this forum involves telling someone how government knows what's best for them - a judgment they can't even be trusted to make for themselves. You are completely oblivious to the mountain of empirical evidence which shows government's one-size-fits-all policies are a complete failure.

Tell me one thing government does well right now. Is it the military? Is it legal prohibitions of behavior? Is it providing healthcare? Is it helping the needy? Is it providing infrastructure? Is it education? Providing energy? Postal service? Name ONE thing that the government does as well or better than a private company could do the same thing. Shouldn't be hard.

 

[Craig234]

Please add me to the list of ignored jerks.

OK.

 

[MotF Bane]

OK.

Yeah, so you don't have even one thing. Fail again.

 

[Craig234]

We don't need it and we certainly can't afford it...

There's nothing to be said about the idiocy of 'we don't need to prevent hundreds of thousands of accidents a year caused by alcohol'.

Now, go google the cost of the alcohol-related accidents, and post the result.

And explain how we can 'afford' that amount.

 

[bfdd]

There's nothing to be said about the idiocy of 'we don't need to prevent hundreds of thousands of accidents a year caused by alcohol'.

Now, go google the cost of the accidents, and post the result.

And explain how we can 'afford' that. Oh, ya, PRIVATE costs are ok.

Better to have $100 in private losses than to spend $1 by the government to prevent it.

It's NOT money spent by the government you fucking douche. It's money spent by US. OUR FUCKING MONEY IS PAYING FOR IT! Who buys the car? WE DO WITH OUR FUCKING MONEY. Oh it's going to be subsidized by the gov't? THAT'S OUR FUCKING MONEY.

A BETTER way to handle this would be to do like Ohio. They have drunk driver plates and restrict their driving rights, ie curfew etc. We also allow way to many repeat offenders back on the road here in California, seeing as most DUIs are repeats this is a huge problem. I have met people with 3+ DUIs who still have licenses. That is ridiculous. Why don't we make the penalties much much harsher for driving under the influence instead of mandating we assume everyone is guilty before they can even drive their own car?

Oh and fuck you Craig.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, it's not.



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



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!'



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



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



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.



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.

It's amazing that you can write so much in response to something that clearly went so far over you head you should be embarrassed but are just too stupid to be.

 

[CycloWizard]

OK.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You're the single biggest ideologue on this forum but you can't even see it because you're also a huge douchebag.

 

[fskimospy]

(First wanna say the OP's link is not working for me. So, I can't read the article.)

I think a number of practical arguments against this proposal have been made. And in one or two more.

First, these things are costly.

What do we do about cars that have already been manufactured without them?

Repeat drunk drivers seem to be the concern here. If so, the obvious answer is to require those convicted to have these devices installed. Seems like tremendous overkill to require all drivers to have these devices.

These devices can be problematic, potentially danger causing.

If they become widespread, methods to circumvent them will become widespread. Most drunk driver types inconvenienced by them could circumvent them, thereby eliminating their purpose.

One big problem in the DUI area is prescription drugs. This is of no help there anyway.

Good intentions are responsible for many bad ideas.

Fern

Except those arguments hadn't been made in a serious way when my post was made.

Cost is possibly an issue, cars made without them are not. You can do the same thing with old cars that we do with other cars that don't meet new mandates. You require all new cars to be built with them, then have a reasonable period of 5 or 10 years before all cars must have them.

You said problematic, potentially danger causing. In what way?

You think that circumvention would be wide spread by 'drunk driver types'? Who are these types? What constitutes 'widespread'? You think that large percentages of people are planning on driving drunk far enough ahead of time as to visit their local mechanic? Not to mention how easy it would be to put statutory penalties on people who do it and their mechanics, people still get busted for DUI without these and it would be easy to tell if it were tampered with. I think you haven't thought that through very well.

As for prescription drugs, the highest estimate I've seen is that they are about 25% of cases, and practically they are likely less than that. Who cares if this only detects 3 out of 4 drunk drivers? That's an enormous improvement.

Your arguments against it so far are pretty poor, and the ideological arguments by others are just bizarre. I guess there's no hill that some people aren't willing to die on.

 

[CycloWizard]

Except those arguments hadn't been made in a serious way when my post was made.

Cost is possibly an issue, cars made without them are not. You can do the same thing with old cars that we do with other cars that don't meet new mandates. You require all new cars to be built with them, then have a reasonable period of 5 or 10 years before all cars must have them.

You said problematic, potentially danger causing. In what way?

You think that circumvention would be wide spread by 'drunk driver types'? Who are these types? What constitutes 'widespread'? You think that large percentages of people are planning on driving drunk far enough ahead of time as to visit their local mechanic? Not to mention how easy it would be to put statutory penalties on people who do it and their mechanics, people still get busted for DUI without these and it would be easy to tell if it were tampered with. I think you haven't thought that through very well.

As for prescription drugs, the highest estimate I've seen is that they are about 25% of cases, and practically they are likely less than that. Who cares if this only detects 3 out of 4 drunk drivers? That's an enormous improvement.

Your arguments against it so far are pretty poor, and the ideological arguments by others are just bizarre. I guess there's no hill that some people aren't willing to die on.

The practical arguments against this method are insurmountable but are secondary to arguments of principle. Even if the technology could work 100% of the time, it would still be wrong to implement it. But the bottom line is that it won't work. I'll tell you why.

Electronic workaround kits would become available online very soon after these were put in vehicles. They could be installed at home by almost anyone and be made virtually undetectable using something simple as a toggle switch (toggle it on to bypass the system, toggle it off and the device would pass any inspection). DC-powered air compressors could easily be constructed to simulate breathing into the device with no alcohol. I could design and build one in a couple of hours, and this is something I might actually consider doing if I suddenly had access to tens of millions of customers subjected to this ridiculous legislation.

 

[fskimospy]

The practical arguments against this method are insurmountable but are secondary to arguments of principle. Even if the technology could work 100% of the time, it would still be wrong to implement it. But the bottom line is that it won't work. I'll tell you why.

Electronic workaround kits would become available online very soon after these were put in vehicles. They could be installed at home by almost anyone and be made virtually undetectable using something simple as a toggle switch (toggle it on to bypass the system, toggle it off and the device would pass any inspection). DC-powered air compressors could easily be constructed to simulate breathing into the device with no alcohol. I could design and build one in a couple of hours, and this is something I might actually consider doing if I suddenly had access to tens of millions of customers subjected to this ridiculous legislation.

No, the arguments of principle were laughable. Truly, tyranny has descended on the shores of America when cars won't turn on if you would be a menace to other drivers, along with committing a serious crime.

By all means though, I'd love to see how your business pans out. I want to see what the customer base of people who say to themselves 'well, I'm planning on driving drunk next week, so I better hit up the mechanic' looks like.

Like I said, no hill you won't die on, huh. I wonder what kind of support I could get on here for a detector that wouldn't turn the car on if you were Muslim.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

No, the arguments of principle were laughable. Truly, tyranny has descended on the shores of America when cars won't turn on if you would be a menace to other drivers, along with committing a serious crime.

By all means though, I'd love to see how your business pans out. I want to see what the customer base of people who say to themselves 'well, I'm planning on driving drunk next week, so I better hit up the mechanic' looks like.

Like I said, no hill you won't die on, huh. I wonder what kind of support I could get on here for a detector that wouldn't turn the car on if you were Muslim.

If you don't think theres a principle here than I guess you wouldn't mind if the police knocked on your door right now and searched your home for drugs. Sure they don't have any evidence, but drugs cause a lot of societal damage and if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind them searching right?

The practical issue is real as well. I don't know if people would go as far as modifying their cars but they might just stick to older cars. I know two people who are habitual drunk drivers. Both of them drive drunk pretty much every weekend and they have one DUI each. They know before they go out they are going to be driving drunk later that night. They would do everything they could to maintain their drunk driving lifestyle.

 

[fskimospy]

If you don't think theres a principle here than I guess you wouldn't mind if the police knocked on your door right now and searched your home for drugs. Sure they don't have any evidence, but drugs cause a lot of societal damage and if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind them searching right?

The practical issue is real as well. I don't know if people would go as far as modifying their cars but they might just stick to older cars. I know two people who are habitual drunk drivers. Both of them drive drunk pretty much every weekend and they have one DUI each. They know before they go out they are going to be driving drunk later that night. They would do everything they could to maintain their drunk driving lifestyle.

Ignition interlocks don't violate the 4th amendment, sorry. Hell, DUI checkpoints where they actually stop and search you don't violate the 4th amendment.

Your friends who are planning and investing money to go out and drive drunk are pretty unlikely to represent many drivers. Not to mention that these devices detect attempts to tamper with them, and so your friends might be cured of their tampering habit in a hurry.

 

[wuliheron]

Oh, but please I just gotta drink and drive! If I have to swear on a stack of Bibles it's my religion I can do that. Forcing me to use a Breathalyzer is like making me put on cloths before I walk outside! It violates my freedom and makes me look like I have something to hide!

 

[MotF Bane]

Oh, but please I just gotta drink and drive! If I have to swear on a stack of Bibles it's my religion I can do that. Forcing me to use a Breathalyzer is like making me put on cloths before I walk outside! It violates my freedom and makes me look like I have something to hide!

The problem here isn't about the repeat offenders, it's about those who have done nothing wrong but are treated like criminals.

 

[wuliheron]

The problem here isn't about the repeat offenders, it's about those who have done nothing wrong but are treated like criminals.

Criminals go to court and jail, that's how they are treated and according to the law that is the definition of who is considered a criminal.

Again, all the breathalyser does is prove you are competent to drive. It doesn't send you to court or to jail and doesn't even do anything invasive like an x-ray or a cavity search. We demand that people prove they can practice medicine legally or even cut hair, and this is no different.

 

[irishScott]

Ignition interlocks don't violate the 4th amendment, sorry. Hell, DUI checkpoints where they actually stop and search you don't violate the 4th amendment.

Your friends who are planning and investing money to go out and drive drunk are pretty unlikely to represent many drivers. Not to mention that these devices detect attempts to tamper with them, and so your friends might be cured of their tampering habit in a hurry.

Lets sum it up. You'd be happy being treated like a criminal in the name of security so long as it doesn't explicitly violate the Constitution. Got it.

Sorry, some of us have more self-respect. Apply the breathalyzer machines to the guilty ones and leave the rest of us alone. Let me spell it out for you.

1. I have never driven drunk.
2. I will never drive drunk.
3. The worst accident I was in shattered my own tail light when I backed into a friend's SUV in a tight parking lot off 2 hours of sleep. His car was barely scratched.
4. I've been driving for 7 years now with only 2 speeding tickets and a warning to show for it.

How does having a breathalyzer in my car help anyone? All it does is hinder me for no reason.

 

[irishScott]

Criminals go to court and jail, that's how they are treated and according to the law that is the definition of who is considered a criminal.

Again, all the breathalyser does is prove you are competent to drive. It doesn't send you to court or to jail and doesn't even do anything invasive like an x-ray or a cavity search. We demand that people prove they can practice medicine legally or even cut hair, and this is no different.

We also require many DUIs to have these machines in their cars when they get out of prison. We don't require them for civilians. Ergo, you are suggesting treating civilians like criminals.

 

[MotF Bane]

Criminals go to court and jail, that's how they are treated and according to the law that is the definition of who is considered a criminal.

Again, all the breathalyser does is prove you are competent to drive. It doesn't send you to court or to jail and doesn't even do anything invasive like an x-ray or a cavity search. We demand that people prove they can practice medicine legally or even cut hair, and this is no different.

And then the criminals get out and have these systems installed in their car because repeat offenders are common.

A driver's license is an equivalent to a medical license, a breathalyzer is not. Poor analogy.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Ignition interlocks don't violate the 4th amendment, sorry. Hell, DUI checkpoints where they actually stop and search you don't violate the 4th amendment.

Your friends who are planning and investing money to go out and drive drunk are pretty unlikely to represent many drivers. Not to mention that these devices detect attempts to tamper with them, and so your friends might be cured of their tampering habit in a hurry.

It may not violate the 4th amendment but I have problem with having to prove I'm sober just to drive my car. It shouldn't be on my to prove I'm sober when I drive.

The assholes who drive drunk every week are not my friends, they are people I know. In the short run they would just avoid buying newer cars to avoid these devices. In the long run its harder to anticipate their actions, but I'm sure they would find a way. If you want to increase penalties for first time DUI offenders or put these devices in their cars you'll get no argument from me. What I and others here object to is having to prove our innocence every time we drive our car.

edit: I also don't agree that the people I know are not representative. You referenced a study that concluded most offenders drive 80 times before they get caught. That sounds like the people I'm talking about.