Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

This is decades old technology thats why it needs to be calibrated. The new technology can take readings automatically from the steering wheel. no need to do anything special.

 

[fskimospy]

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?

Because as with all laws, you are attempting to balance the impact on society with the desirability of the outcome. I don't view requiring a process that takes 2 seconds to be an unreasonable imposition.

As for what's a sensible compromise, no I don't really think so. Large numbers of people drive around drunk all the time in America who have never been convicted of a DUI. The burden of this is small (at least in a civil liberties sense, I'd have to read more about the financial costs, accuracy, etc), and the potential benefit is tens of thousands of lives.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

yeah did you watch the video? They said the existing technology is ancient. The new sensors are built into the steering wheel, no intrusion at all. And because you never drink and drive doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the same safety features.

An equivalent argument would be, I don't need side/rear view mirrors, breaks, or seat belts because I don't go over 5 mph.

 

[irishScott]

This is decades old technology thats why it needs to be calibrated. The new technology can take readings automatically from the steering wheel. no need to do anything special.

And what about my statements regarding 5th amendment violations and right to due process? Even a drunk driver cannot be compelled to bear witness against him/herself and is innocent until proven guilty. Or would the breathalyzer not be admissible evidence in court and just be a nuisance?

 

[jonks]

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.

Getting on a plane requires thorough inspection despite most people not being terrorists. Since they don't know who the terrorists are beforehand they do a safety check and it affects even non-terrorists.

I'm against the proposal but none these arguments aren't doing it for me.

And what about my statements regarding 5th amendment violations and right to due process? Even a drunk driver cannot be compelled to bear witness against him/herself and is innocent until proven guilty. Or would the breathalyzer not be admissible evidence in court and just be a nuisance?

I didn't see anything about people getting arrested here, the car simply won't start. Additionally, what crime have you committed if the car won't start, attempted drunk driving?

 

[Genx87]

Because as with all laws, you are attempting to balance the impact on society with the desirability of the outcome. I don't view requiring a process that takes 2 seconds to be an unreasonable imposition.

As for what's a sensible compromise, no I don't really think so. Large numbers of people drive around drunk all the time in America who have never been convicted of a DUI. The burden of this is small (at least in a civil liberties sense, I'd have to read more about the financial costs, accuracy, etc), and the potential benefit is tens of thousands of lives.

Well I do view it as an unreasonable imposition to make me, a sober driver blow into a device to start my car because a minority of drivers are driving illegally.

You are fine with forcing others to utilize a device for the crimes of others based on guesstimates of people breaking the law. So be it. I view this as a draconian step to address a real issue. An issue that can be dealt with the actual offenders. You drive drunk, welcome to requiring this device.

 

[irishScott]

asdf

 

[IceBergSLiM]

And what about my statements regarding 5th amendment violations and right to due process? Even a drunk driver cannot be compelled to bear witness against themselves and is innocent until proven guilty. Or would the breathalyzer not be admissible evidence in court and just be a nuisance?

Department of motor vehicles rules are not criminal cases. This is why you don't get arrested for a broken tail light. due process does not apply outside of the judicial system of which dmv is not a part.

Ideally if this was implemented across the board they would repeal all DUI laws(no point in having law for something that is impossible to do) and instead implement criminal penalties for tampering or manipulating DUI sensors in cars instead.

 

[Genx87]

yeah did you watch the video? They said the existing technology is ancient. The new sensors are built into the steering wheel, no intrusion at all. And because you never drink and drive doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the same safety features.

An equivalent argument would be, I don't need side/rear view mirrors, breaks, or seat belts because I don't go over 5 mph.

The intrusion is the govt telling me, a law abiding citizen that I have to pass a drunk test to start my car because my neighbor had his 3rd DUI arrest. You dont get that?

That isnt the equivalent at all. The car will run just fine without mirrors, seat belts, ect..... And I am not being fined if I dont those devices on there because my neighbor doesnt.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The intrusion is the govt telling me, a law abiding citizen that I have to pass a drunk test to start my car because my neighbor had his 3rd DUI arrest. You dont get that?

Is it an intrusion that they tell you what speed to drive, to wear a seatbelt and to not talk on your cell phone?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The intrusion is the govt telling me, a law abiding citizen that I have to pass a drunk test to start my car because my neighbor had his 3rd DUI arrest. You dont get that?

That isnt the equivalent at all. The car will run just fine without mirrors, seat belts, ect..... And I am not being fined if I dont those devices on there because my neighbor doesnt.

u lost me here.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

That's not a violation of the 5th amendment in any way. You have the right not to offer evidence towards your own conviction, yes. Because of this, the government probably couldn't force you to take your car in to have the meter checked. It can require that such a meter is checked before allowing such a car on the road however.

You're not convicted of anything if you don't meet the standards, you just can't drive. Driving without a license is a crime, would it be an unreasonable intrusion of the government to have the driver RFID his license on the steering wheel for a second before driving? (I can think of a few reasons why this would be a dumb idea, but just consider it from a civil liberties standpoint)

 

[irishScott]

Department of motor vehicles rules are not criminal cases. This is why you don't get arrested for a broken tail light. due process does not apply outside of the judicial system of which dmv is not a part.

Ideally if this was implemented across the board they would repeal all DUI laws(no point in having law for something that is impossible to do) and instead implement criminal penalties for tampering or manipulating DUI sensors in cars instead.

Uhh... last I checked for a broken tail light you're given a court summons and can contest the charge. It's an accusation of a crime all the same, just not one that's arrest-worthy.

 

[Genx87]

u lost me here.

It was poorly written. What I am saying is if my mirror, tail light, seat belt arent worn. My car will continue to function and I am not required to have those features on a car because my neighbor's car doesnt. You are arguing these devices are equivalent to requiring I pass a drunk test before the car start. I dont think they are at all.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Uhh... last I checked for a broken tail light you're given a court summons and can contest the charge. It's an accusation of a crime all the same, just not one that's arrest-worthy.

No its not you do not go to criminal court you are not read your rights you do not have a right to trial etc etc etc. If you don't pay your ticket there is no penalty other than you lose your license. Then if you drive without a license well that is a crime and you will get arrested and face a real judge and have a right to a speedy and fair trial and all the other due process.

 

[irishScott]

That's not a violation of the 5th amendment in any way. You have the right not to offer evidence towards your own conviction, yes. Because of this, the government probably couldn't force you to take your car in to have the meter checked. It can require that such a meter is checked before allowing such a car on the road however.

You're not convicted of anything if you don't meet the standards, you just can't drive. Driving without a license is a crime, would it be an unreasonable intrusion of the government to have the driver RFID his license on the steering wheel for a second before driving? (I can think of a few reasons why this would be a dumb idea, but just consider it from a civil liberties standpoint)

So from what you and iceberg are saying:

1. Taking the meter in, even for 6 violations, to get it reset would not be admissible evidence in court and could not be used to charge you with DUI. It would just be a nuisance for drunk drivers.

2. The new technology in the steering wheel is unobtrusive, accurate and 100% reliable.

Given those two points, it's much more reasonable. On paper. Unfortunately nothing is 100% reliable or accurate and there's a very slippery slope with regard to #1 and attempts to violate the 5th amendment based on people getting their meters reset.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It was poorly written. What I am saying is if my mirror, tail light, seat belt arent worn. My car will continue to function and I am not required to have those features on a car because my neighbor's car doesnt. You are arguing these devices are equivalent to requiring I pass a drunk test before the car start. I dont think they are at all.

My argument was it is a safety feature and not an intrusion. I'm not getting your point here.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So from what you and iceberg are saying:

1. Taking the meter in, even for 6 violations, to get it reset would not be admissible evidence in court and could not be used to charge you with DUI. It would just be a nuisance for drunk drivers.

2. The new technology in the steering wheel is unobtrusive, accurate and 100% reliable.

Given those two points, it's much more reasonable. On paper. Unfortunately nothing is 100% reliable or accurate and there's a very slippery slope with regard to #1 and attempts to violate the 5th amendment based on people getting their meters reset.

No safety feature is 100% reliable so all safety features should be abolished? D:

clearly you see the fail there.

 

[fskimospy]

So from what you and iceberg are saying:

1. Taking the meter in, even for 6 violations, to get it reset would not be admissible evidence in court and could not be used to charge you with DUI. It would just be a nuisance for drunk drivers.

2. The new technology in the steering wheel is unobtrusive, accurate and 100% reliable.

Given those two points, it's much more reasonable. On paper. Unfortunately nothing is 100% reliable or accurate and there's a very slippery slope with regard to #1 and attempts to violate the 5th amendment based on people getting their meters reset.

What I'm saying is that the government couldn't compel you to take it in to the mechanic yourself in order to provide evidence against you. They could probably get the information in some other way though if they wanted.

I have no idea as to the other things, I specifically said so earlier. The technology might not be ready for it yet, I'm not sure. My argument was against the principle/civil liberties positions, which I find silly.

 

[irishScott]

No safety measure is 100% reliable so all safety measures should be abolished? D:

clearly you see the fail there.

Where did I say that? Current safety measures on cars pertaining to the driver do not disable the vehicle if they fail. A faulty seat belt sensor does not prevent you from starting the car, which would currently require you to call and and pay for a tow truck to take your car to the nearest dealer to get it repaired. That's a major intrusion thank you very much.

 

[Genx87]

My argument was it is a safety feature and not an intrusion. I'm not getting your point here.

Making me pass a drunk test to start my car because others drive drunk is an intrusion. You can claim it a safety feature, and it is, but doesnt mean it isnt an intrusion. And imo an intrusion into law abiding citizens that shouldnt be made. Address the issue with the people actually breaking the law.

 

[jonks]

My argument was it is a safety feature and not an intrusion.

It's both, they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Where did I say that? Current safety measures on cars pertaining to the driver do not disable the vehicle if they fail. A faulty seat belt sensor does not prevent you from starting the car, which would currently require you to call and and pay for a tow truck to take your car to the nearest dealer to get it repaired. That's a major intrusion thank you very much.

your strongest argument is a hypothetical scenario about what happens if a sensor fails. I'm not an engineer but I'm pretty sure I they can have the forethought to work through that obvious scenario.

 

[jonks]

Where did I say that? Current safety measures on cars pertaining to the driver do not disable the vehicle if they fail. A faulty seat belt sensor does not prevent you from starting the car, which would currently require you to call and and pay for a tow truck to take your car to the nearest dealer to get it repaired. That's a major intrusion thank you very much.

A seatbelt sensor doesn't disable the car because if you don't put a seatbelt on it doesn't determine whether you will cross into oncoming traffic and kill a family of 5.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Making me pass a drunk test to start my car because others drive drunk is an intrusion. You can claim it a safety feature, and it is, but doesnt mean it isnt an intrusion.

DMV makes you pass all kinds of tests to prove you are a safe driver. How is this different? Are you up in arms because you have to prove you aren't blind to get a drivers license?



And imo an intrusion into law abiding citizens that shouldnt be made. Address the issue with the people actually breaking the law.

We tried the passive approach but that doesn't save lives. 15k lives lost each year because we are too lazy as a society to make a meaningful proactive change. its disgusting.

Sure we can punish people after the fact does that bring someones mother/daughter back? No. Instead you end up with two lives ruined. One life lost and the other rotting away in prison at the expense of the tax payer. If anything that is the intrusion.

..