• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
EDIT: Link is dead see post #155 for update - it's a federal proposal with bi-partisan support.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ome-Standard-With-a-New-Car-117777338.html?dr

It's called "The Roads Safe Act" and opponents claim it's designed to put an alcohol detector in every car, just like an airbag or stereo.
Click to expand...

Pretty controversial. I know most of the drunks on the West coast aren't up yet to weigh in but in the meantime, what's everyone think? My first reaction was that it's just another overreaching piece of legislation out of California, but there are so many stories about repeat offenders, people driving on suspended licenses due to numerous alcohol offenses and the like that I just don't know. It really gets me angry to read about someone who has a dozen drunk driving offenses with no license that kills someone with their car.
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ome-Standard-With-a-New-Car-117777338.html?dr



Pretty controversial. I know most of the drunks on the West coast aren't up yet to weigh in but in the meantime, what's everyone think? My first reaction was that it's just another overreaching piece of legislation out of California, but there are so many stories about repeat offenders, people driving on suspended licenses due to numerous alcohol offenses and the like that I just don't know. It really gets me angry to read about someone who has a dozen drunk driving offenses with no license that kills someone with their car.
Click to expand...

According to a fairly recent study in Wisconsin, the average drunk driver drives while intoxicated between 80 and 200 times before being caught. (depending on how good the police in that area are) That's a lot of drunk driving, and I can say that I believe the vast majority of people have either driven themselves when they know they shouldn't have, and probably knows several people who have done the same.

An arrest for a DUI is horrible for everyone involved. It sucks for the person driving, it sucks for anyone who was on the road with them before they were caught, it sucks for the state, etc. Since we already banned driving while intoxicated a long time ago, and presumably no one has a problem with that, why would verifying it be a problem?

I get the whole nanny state argument, I really do. Considering how many people are killed/maimed/etc by drunk drivers each year however, this seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a state to want to restrict. I mean, are people really going to come and fight for their ability to drive drunk and endanger other people?

Finally, if people don't want to live in California, great! You'll never know what you're missing, because it's absolutely fantastic.
 
boomerang said:
but there are so many stories about repeat offenders, people driving on suspended licenses due to numerous alcohol offenses and the like that I just don't know.
Click to expand...

Sounds like these concerns can be addressed the way they are now, by requiring alc detectors among past offenders. Seems overreach to req it for everyone.

I see what eskimo is saying, but given how many billions of total trips people make in cars where they aren't drunk, I come down on the other side of this one.

Not sure on the exact numbers but I've read at leats in OR that speeders killed more people than drunks, but I'd be against electronic limiting of top speed to 70mph too.
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ome-Standard-With-a-New-Car-117777338.html?dr



Pretty controversial. I know most of the drunks on the West coast aren't up yet to weigh in but in the meantime, what's everyone think? My first reaction was that it's just another overreaching piece of legislation out of California, but there are so many stories about repeat offenders, people driving on suspended licenses due to numerous alcohol offenses and the like that I just don't know. It really gets me angry to read about someone who has a dozen drunk driving offenses with no license that kills someone with their car.
Click to expand...

Repeat offenders can be solved by tossing them in jail for a long time or requiring repeat offenders to install these devices. Why punish the majority because of the minority?
 
SunnyD said:
Because California Emissions don't come standard on every car sold in the US?
Click to expand...

Completely different situation...they really want to throw another distraction in on top of driving since you have to blow in these things periodically while driving? Mandatory for offenders I'm all for it, making everyone pay and be distracted by it not so much...
 
corwin said:
Completely different situation...they really want to throw another distraction in on top of driving since you have to blow in these things periodically while driving? Mandatory for offenders I'm all for it, making everyone pay and be distracted by it not so much...
Click to expand...

What I'm alluding it is the previously quoted poster saying he's glad he doesn't live in California. If California mandates it, you can bet in a few years time it will become "standard" on all cars sold in the US, whether the state you live in requires it or not.

edit: brain fart, you WERE the previously quoted poster. sorry
 
Sounds like it will face the same kind of up hill battle seatbelts did. Bottom line is a huge chunk of the population wants their freedom to occasionally drive drunk, not wear their seatbelt, or whatever. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it was a cheap and inconspicuous detector for cocaine or heroin it would meet no resistance whatsoever and be passed tomorrow.
 
SunnyD said:
What I'm alluding it is the previously quoted poster saying he's glad he doesn't live in California. If California mandates it, you can bet in a few years time it will become "standard" on all cars sold in the US, whether the state you live in requires it or not.

edit: brain fart, you WERE the previously quoted poster. sorry
Click to expand...

Yep it was me, guilty as charged...still don't ever see it happening, making everyone pay for and be distracted by something while driving isn't going to go over too well...required in every state for offenders most definitely. And the rest of the country really doesn't follow everything California does thankfully...
 
corwin said:
Yep it was me, guilty as charged...still don't ever see it happening, making everyone pay for and be distracted by something while driving isn't going to go over too well...required in every state for offenders most definitely. And the rest of the country really doesn't follow everything California does thankfully...
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely. It's stupid and wasteful. I'm just saying, California is the benchmark in terms of industry standards for a lot of things because of the retarded laws they pass. Take a look at any upholstery label for example... "Meets California Standards for Flammability". I'm grateful for that, really I am.
 
Just because it's proposed doesn't mean it'll happen. The biggest hurdle would be the extra cost to the price of all new vehicles.
 
SunnyD said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely. It's stupid and wasteful. I'm just saying, California is the benchmark in terms of industry standards for a lot of things because of the retarded laws they pass. Take a look at any upholstery label for example... "Meets California Standards for Flammability". I'm grateful for that, really I am.
Click to expand...

You have a point...wonder how that came to be though...
 
wuliheron said:
Sounds like it will face the same kind of up hill battle seatbelts did. Bottom line is a huge chunk of the population wants their freedom to occasionally drive drunk, not wear their seatbelt, or whatever. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it was a cheap and inconspicuous detector for cocaine or heroin it would meet no resistance whatsoever and be passed tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Or how about the rest of the society who doesnt drink and drive at all being forced to use these devices to start and drive their car? They did nothing to warrant being treated like a drunk by the state.
 
I'm all for devices to make cares safer. However this is a device to make drivers safer, so I'm torn. How long before cars won't start if an Asian woman is behind the wheel?
 
Genx87 said:
Or how about the rest of the society who doesnt drink and drive at all being forced to use these devices to start and drive their car? They did nothing to warrant being treated like a drunk by the state.
Click to expand...

It's not terribly difficult to understand the mind of a collectivist. They freely support the idea that society be punished for the crimes of individuals.
 
Genx87 said:
Or how about the rest of the society who doesnt drink and drive at all being forced to use these devices to start and drive their car? They did nothing to warrant being treated like a drunk by the state.
Click to expand...

I've used this exact argument in debates against gun registration and licensing. And now California is trying to make it a reality. Go figure.
 
Genx87 said:
Or how about the rest of the society who doesnt drink and drive at all being forced to use these devices to start and drive their car? They did nothing to warrant being treated like a drunk by the state.
Click to expand...

How about the fact you need a fucking key to start the car. Why the fuck do I have to have a key. Why the f do I have to be inconvenienced just because there are thieves? But good to know there are other folk who think like me.
 
eskimospy said:
According to a fairly recent study in Wisconsin, the average drunk driver drives while intoxicated between 80 and 200 times before being caught. (depending on how good the police in that area are) That's a lot of drunk driving, and I can say that I believe the vast majority of people have either driven themselves when they know they shouldn't have, and probably knows several people who have done the same.

An arrest for a DUI is horrible for everyone involved. It sucks for the person driving, it sucks for anyone who was on the road with them before they were caught, it sucks for the state, etc. Since we already banned driving while intoxicated a long time ago, and presumably no one has a problem with that, why would verifying it be a problem?

I get the whole nanny state argument, I really do. Considering how many people are killed/maimed/etc by drunk drivers each year however, this seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a state to want to restrict. I mean, are people really going to come and fight for their ability to drive drunk and endanger other people?

Finally, if people don't want to live in California, great! You'll never know what you're missing, because it's absolutely fantastic.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see this study, how they determined that number if the person never got caught and what they consider to be "intoxicated".
 
Moonbeam said:
How about the fact you need a fucking key to start the car. Why the fuck do I have to have a key. Why the f do I have to be inconvenienced just because there are thieves? But good to know there are other folk who think like me.
Click to expand...

This is not a good analogy, IMHO, Moonbeam. I would think the market would demand such a feature be included in such a product.
 
Moonbeam said:
How about the fact you need a fucking key to start the car. Why the fuck do I have to have a key. Why the f do I have to be inconvenienced just because there are thieves? But good to know there are other folk who think like me.
Click to expand...

Terrible analogy is terrible.
 
Moonbeam said:
How about the fact you need a fucking key to start the car. Why the fuck do I have to have a key. Why the f do I have to be inconvenienced just because there are thieves? But good to know there are other folk who think like me.
Click to expand...

You're not inconvenienced by a key. Nor does a key rely on the concept of guilty until proven innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top