Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[JohnnyGage]

Any more ridiculous arguments?

Half of this board is an internet libertarian, free to espouse silly ideas, never realizing how thankful they should be that society protects them from the consequences of these ideas by never implementing them.[/QUOTE]

Kinda like this silly law huh?

 

[BoberFett]

In these debates the horrendous quality of these devices never seems to come up. I know someone (no, not me) who has one of these breathalyzer interlocks after a DUI and it's fairly common for him to have trouble starting his car when he hasn't had a drop of alcohol. The things freeze up in winter (not as much of a problem in CA of course) and frequently fails entirely requiring him to replace the entire unit.

 

[alphatarget1]

what if the detector malfunctions and cuts off your engine power in the middle of the freeway, causing crashes? You as a citizen will probably be forbidden to sue the idiots who run the government.

I can't believe any sane person would advocate this. This reminds me why people who hold the same political beliefs as EskimoSpy should not be allowed in government.

Education is key. Show gruesome videos to new drivers and pound it in the back of their head that drunk driving can kill you/other people. I know the UK does this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E

Texting and driving, same thing. Buy ad slots on all these retarded MTV shows and the kids will learn. Do the same for drunk driving. Show blood, show some guts and flesh. More people will think about the consequences of their actions.

 

[irishScott]

You could argue that making driver's license's mandatory assumes that people are stupid and lazy. Why not just wait until someone breaks the law or causes an accident to see if they know how to drive? Because the ugly truth is people often are stupid and lazy!

While you can't protect people from themselves all the time and it's debatable whether you should even try you would have to be even more stupid and lazy to allow stupid and lazy people to have every opportunity in the world to kill you.

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.

A license proves you are capable of driving a car. A mandatory breathalyzer is there to prove that you're innocent of a DUI before you're even accused or even in a situation where a DUI would be possible. Say I don't have any alcohol in my house. Despite having no immediate access to alcohol for the last 8 hours minimum (sleep), when getting up to go to work I'd have to prove I wasn't DUI. I also have no history of drinking problems. I've never even been full-blown drunk. Why should I have to prove that I'm innocent of a DUI every time I turn on my vehicle?

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

 

[thegimp03]

I think all men should be required to wear a boner sensor, and if it goes off when a child is present, it cuts off the man's penis. Gotta protect the children.

That made me lol...brilliant.

 

[irishScott]

You don't tell the great Moonbeam when he's inconvenienced and a locked car is a testament to guilt. That is why you check to make sure your door is locked when you stop at a sign and a black man is standing there. You know damn well he's guilty.

Yes I do. A key is simply a way of activating your vehicle. If a wrist turn is too much for you, there are cars with buttons now too. If a button is too inconvenient, then I guess until we invent telepathic interfaces you're screwed. Or you could just leave your car on at all times and see how that works.

http://www.google.com/images?q=Car+...PIm90QHY5sHWAw&ved=0CFAQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1033

If you think a locked door is an affront you, leave your doors unlocked. Disable the locks completely if you like. Assuming you own the car you have that freedom.

 

[piasabird]

Just design the car so if you fail the test, the seat will shock them till they get out or an automatic call goes to the 911 operator. Maybe do it a different way, have an automatic taser in the sreering colum, and call 911 also. Every time they blow and the test is positive for alcohol, give them a $1,000.00 fine.

Repeat drunk driving offenders should lose their license forever.

3 strikes and your out.

All alcoholic drinks should be outlawed. If it works for guns, so just outlaw all Alcohol.

 

[CycloWizard]

In these debates the horrendous quality of these devices never seems to come up. I know someone (no, not me) who has one of these breathalyzer interlocks after a DUI and it's fairly common for him to have trouble starting his car when he hasn't had a drop of alcohol. The things freeze up in winter (not as much of a problem in CA of course) and frequently fails entirely requiring him to replace the entire unit.

It's also pretty straightforward to disable/bypass such devices. This would give government another in, as they would require an additional inspection to ensure the device was still functional. Then, instead of just having a safety inspection and emissions test by which it can drag money out of you, you could be penalized if the sensor isn't working.

 

[irishScott]

Your right to a trial has nothing to do with automobile regulation. Similarly, the government can require you to wear a seat belt in a car without putting you on trial.

No, not similarly. A seat belt is a universal passive safety measure. It's presence does not indicate that you are guilty of a crime. A breathalyzer requires you to prove innocence of a specific crime before driving. Guilty until proven innocent. Also, a seat belt not being buckled does not prevent the car from starting and does not stall the engine while driving.

Assume this breathalyzer works as advertised and a drunk driver violates it for the 6th time. It stalls in heavy traffic. An intoxicated person is now behind the wheel of a mildly out of control vehicle. What if they need to accelerate to avoid an accident? (I've been there on the DC beltway more than once)

Stop making analogies and confront the issue at hand.

 

[bruceb]

Most states already require use on an Ignition Interlock Breath Tester for drivers convicted of a DUI offense. Problem is the systems are very unreliable, to the point of saying you fail the test, when in fact, the driver is stone sober. They test upon initial start up and then at random intervals during the trip. If the machine makes a mistake, which it does often, it is extremely difficult to get the so-called offense removed. And costly as well as they break down often.

http://www.motorists.org/forums/list.php?2

 

[JeepinEd]

I'm guessing that if you dig far enough, you'll find some connection between the author of this bill and the manufacturers of said device.

 

[fskimospy]

No, not similarly. A seat belt is a universal passive safety measure. It's presence does not indicate that you are guilty of a crime. A breathalyzer requires you to prove innocence of a specific crime before driving. Guilty until proven innocent. Also, a seat belt not being buckled does not prevent the car from starting and does not stall the engine while driving.

Assume this breathalyzer works as advertised and a drunk driver violates it for the 6th time. It stalls in heavy traffic. An intoxicated person is now behind the wheel of a mildly out of control vehicle. What if they need to accelerate to avoid an accident? (I've been there on the DC beltway more than once)

Stop making analogies and confront the issue at hand.

The government is not requiring you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, the government is requiring you to meet certain requirements to operate a motor vehicle. Seat belts are one, passing this would be another.

As for the breathalysers themselves, you have no idea what you're talking about. These things don't shut the engine off while you're driving, they make your car alarm or something go off to notify people around you. They prevent the vehicle from starting. Maybe before you ask me to confront an issue, you should take 30 seconds and learn about the issue you're asking me about.

 

[bamacre]

I'm guessing that if you dig far enough, you'll find some connection between the author of this bill and the manufacturers of said device.

I'd bet you're correct. Ironic that evil corporations are praised by Democrats as soon as their products are forced upon everyone by the government. Look at the health care reform bill, i.e. the mandate wrapped gift Democrats gave to the evil health insurance companies.

 

[bamacre]

The government is not requiring you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, the government is requiring you to meet certain requirements to operate a motor vehicle.

LOL, proving yourself wrong in one sentence. Yeah, they are requiring you to meet the requirement that you aren't a drunk driver, which is a crime. I usually try to stop people from making themselves look stupid, but please, do continue.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, proving yourself wrong in one sentence. Yeah, they are requiring you to meet the requirement that you aren't a drunk driver, which is a crime. I usually try to stop people from making themselves look stupid, but please, do continue.

Wrong. If you failed the test in the vehicle, you are not guilty of DUI.

If you're really looking to stop people from looking dumb on here, you might want to check that beam in your eye.

 

[irishScott]

The government is not requiring you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, the government is requiring you to meet certain requirements to operate a motor vehicle. Seat belts are one, passing this would be another.

As for the breathalysers themselves, you have no idea what you're talking about. These things don't shut the engine off while you're driving, they make your car alarm or something go off to notify people around you. They prevent the vehicle from starting. Maybe before you ask me to confront an issue, you should take 30 seconds and learn about the issue you're asking me about.

Sorry, I misread the article.

A new law under consideration would call for installation of a device that would allow six violations before stalling the car

The device allows six violations, then the car won't start at all.

Experts say it is also set up to make sure drivers don't try to cheat.

"They make you blow into it while you're driving, therefore somebody doesn't blow into it at the bar for you, and then you leave," said Benedict.

And show me where seat belts count violations to prevent the car from starting if they aren't buckled within a few seconds of if the person shifts out of park before buckling.

And as I mentioned, what if I'm in a situation where even being mildly intoxicated is impossible? Why should I have to prove that I'm not guilty of a DUI after 8 hours of sleep with no alcohol in my house?

 

[irishScott]

Wrong. If you failed the test in the vehicle, you are not guilty of DUI.

If you're really looking to stop people from looking dumb on here, you might want to check that beam in your eye.

No, you're guilty of less according to the article.

Mechanics who work with the Smart Start System say you don't have to be over the legal limit to stall out.

"Normally what they should calibrate it at .03. I believe for most people that's the warning level," said Garrett Benedict, a mechanic.

The device allows six violations, then the car won't start at all.

So I don't break the law 6 times and my car refuses to start. Nice.

 

[bamacre]

Wrong. If you failed the test in the vehicle, you are not guilty of DUI.

No one said otherwise. How is this relevant to your dumbass comment...?

The government is not requiring you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, the government is requiring you to meet certain requirements to operate a motor vehicle.

Oops, it's not. Divert!!

 

[fskimospy]

No, you're guilty of less according to the article.



So I don't break the law 6 times and my car refuses to start. Nice.

Well if you want to argue calibration levels, maintenance requirements, accuracy, that's fine, and from what I've read those are very valid concerns that would need to be addressed before something like this was implemented.

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

 

[Genx87]

Wrong. If you failed the test in the vehicle, you are not guilty of DUI.

If you're really looking to stop people from looking dumb on here, you might want to check that beam in your eye.

You are required to prove you arent drunk(illegal) before you can start a vehicle. That is the same thing as being considred guilty before proving you are innocent.

That said why would you support a measure that penalizes people who never drive drunk because a minority of drivers do? Wouldnt requiring this device for people who are convicted of drunk driving be a more sensible compromise than requiring law abiding citizens pass a drunk test before each start?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

 

[irishScott]

Well if you want to argue calibration levels, maintenance requirements, accuracy, that's fine, and from what I've read those are very valid concerns that would need to be addressed before something like this was implemented.

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

Well if they calibrate it to the legal limit than my guilty until proven innocent argument stands all the clearer. I have to prove that I'm not driving over the legal limit (innocent of a crime) to drive. Every single time.

If the meter records it and I'm required to report it for inspection, that's also a violation of the 5th amendment.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You are required to prove you arent drunk(illegal) before you can start a vehicle. That is the same thing as being considred guilty before proving you are innocent.

That said why would you support a measure that penalizes people who never drive drunk because a minority of drivers do? Wouldnt requiring this device for people who are convicted of drunk driving be a more sensible compromise than requiring law abiding citizens pass a drunk test before each start?

how is this a punishment and not a safety feature? please elaborate?

 

[irishScott]

how is this a punishment and not a safety feature? please elaborate?

See my post.

 

[Genx87]

how is this a punishment and not a safety feature? please elaborate?

Requiring me to blow into a device to start my car is penalizing me for others actions. This is an un-needed extra step. I shouldnt have to blow into a device to start my car because I never drive when drinking.