Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[CycloWizard]

1) you couldn't prove what i asked you to prove. Cite one example of one technological innovation that has raised car prices across the board. Don't even bother. Car prices remain relatively(to inflation) flat and the technology in them is always increasing. You cannot prove this wrong.

2) Why are you against Engineers and professionals performing due diligence on this?

You're an idiot. You think a car engine is free. You think the doors are free. You think airbags are free. You think seatbelts are free. You're an idiot. Not quite a haiku, but I think the symmetry is nice.

 

[BoberFett]

what is your solution?

Solution to what? You assume I think there's a problem to be solved.

 

[zsdersw]

not if you read when it was addressed previously.

I did read it, and no it wasn't addressed.

Make the punishments extreme for tampering/circumventing? The more extreme the punishment, the less likely the majority will support it.

Equip the device with a "phone home" feature that lets the DMV know it's been tampered with? Good luck with that. Everyone already loves the DMV, so I'm sure they'll jump at the chance to vote for something that puts the DMV a step or two closer to being Big Brother. Circumvention can also be created that's intermittent.. fooling any "phone-home" feature.

I don't think you understand the costs

Yes I do. I think you overestimate the benefits.

More ore less harsh punishments?

I don't support the only legal BAC being 0.01%. Leave it at 0.08.
I don't support a lifetime ban on driving.. but I do support car repossession for a period of time.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You're an idiot. You think a car engine is free. You think the doors are free. You think airbags are free. You think seatbelts are free. You're an idiot. Not quite a haiku, but I think the symmetry is nice.

then abandon the claim that cars with this technology will cost more. There is no evidence of that.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Solution to what? You assume I think there's a problem to be solved.

DUI I thought that was apparent from the thread title and content.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I did read it, and no it wasn't addressed.

Make the punishments extreme for tampering/circumventing? The more extreme the punishment, the less likely the majority will support it.

Equip the device with a "phone home" feature that lets the DMV know it's been tampered with? Good luck with that. Everyone already loves the DMV, so I'm sure they'll jump at the chance to vote for something that puts the DMV a step or two closer to being Big Brother. Circumvention can also be created that's intermittent.. fooling any "phone-home" feature.



Yes I do. I think you overestimate the benefits.



I don't support the only legal BAC being 0.01%. Leave it at 0.08.
I don't support a lifetime ban on driving.. but I do support car repossession for a period of time.

So you don't really support zero tolerance. You actually indirectly support and condone drinking an driving. Just to be clear. And that is why you are against this device.(at the root of it)

 

[zsdersw]

So you don't really support zero tolerance. You actually indirectly support and condone drinking an driving. Just to be clear. And that is why you are against this device.(at the root of it)

Inferring is not your strong suit.

Zero-tolerance doesn't have to mean lifetime banning and everything exactly the way you say it does. Zero-tolerance could mean a lot of things for a first offense... and that would be quite a bit harsher than the punishments states have in place now.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Inferring is not your strong suit.

Zero-tolerance doesn't have to mean lifetime banning and everything exactly the way you say it does. Zero-tolerance could mean a lot of things for a first offense... and that would be quite a bit harsher than the punishments states have in place now.

punishments aside .08 isn't zero tolerance. zero tolerance implies the legal limit is 0 drinks/shots/sips/etc implying the limit should be the tolerance of the device testing.

 

[irishScott]

punishments aside .08 isn't zero tolerance. zero tolerance implies the legal limit is 0 drinks/shots/sips/etc implying the limit should be the tolerance of the device testing.

Yes, and zero tolerance punishes the innocent.

Zero tolerance expels the 10 year old who brings his Boy Scout knife to school to show his friends or a plastic gun as a prop for a history presentation.'

Zero tolerance once got my friend in middle school suspended because he took an Ibeauprofen in between classes to help with sinus pressure.

In your world, zero tolerance would put me in jail if I had a BAC of .000001, after you mandated a piece of technology into existence that can measure it reliably and convinced Webster to take the word "negligible" out of the dictionary.

Zero tolerance is the arena of absolutists who pee their panties at the thought of even minor uncertainty or gray area. You can have minimal tolerance (like we do for lots of things), but zero tolerance is a definition of stupid.

 

[CycloWizard]

then abandon the claim that cars with this technology will cost more. There is no evidence of that.

Every item in any product adds to its cost. Are you really going to claim that this statement is untrue? Really? D:

 

[zsdersw]

punishments aside .08 isn't zero tolerance. zero tolerance implies the legal limit is 0 drinks/shots/sips/etc implying the limit should be the tolerance of the device testing.

You can't put punishments aside.

As it is now, punishments for DUI are less for first offenses than subsequent ones.. in most states. Punishments should be harsher for first offenses.. and that's more zero-tolerance than what we have now.

 

[irishScott]

Every item in any product adds to its cost. Are you really going to claim that this statement is untrue? Really? D:

But if there's a government mandate then the insurance companies will magically make them free! 🙄

 

[alkemyst]

Cars have better safety features. Can you prove their are less drunks on the road or just less deaths? The problem isn't only fatalities its often worse for the people that survive these crashes.

Accidents and injuries are also down.

Do you understand that all these statistics are freely available? You act as if they are secretive.

It's proving you have been brainwashed to buy into the MADD/SADD dogma and why they are such a successful lobby.

 

[alkemyst]

Every item in any product adds to its cost. Are you really going to claim that this statement is untrue? Really? D:

Airbags add a SIGNIFICANT cost to both production and accidents.

They have been PROVEN to not save the lives they were billed to do...yet year after year it's still going.

Once you understand that then the rest makes more sense. It's not really about saving lives.

 

[Craig234]

then abandon the claim that cars with this technology will cost more. There is no evidence of that.

I don't understand your comment here.

Of COURSE the devices add cost to cars.

Now, there is a question whether the reduction in the costs of drunk driving are smaller or greater than that cost, but that's irrelevant to the issue to me.

Rather, it's whether the costs are REASONABLE for the benefits of reducing drunk driving, and that's not only financial benefits.

 

[Craig234]

Airbags add a SIGNIFICANT cost to both production and accidents.

They have been PROVEN to not save the lives they were billed to do...yet year after year it's still going.

Once you understand that then the rest makes more sense. It's not really about saving lives.

Of COURSE it's about saving lives. Provide any evidence to the contrary - maybe the 'air bag lobbying organization' of billionare air bag makers who spread lies?

Or perhaps car makers just find such marketing benefit to safety claims that the cost of air bags is justified for them to lobby lawmakers to require them?

IF your claims were true, I'd consider removing the requirement for air bags.

The information I've seen says that air bags, in conjunction with seat belts, reduce injury over seat belts alone.

I'm not planning to read all what, 11? pages to see if you posted some evidence for your position. Do you really have compelling evidence overriding the best research?

 

[Craig234]

1) you couldn't prove what i asked you to prove. Cite one example of one technological innovation that has raised car prices across the board. Don't even bother. Car prices remain relatively(to inflation) flat and the technology in them is always increasing. You cannot prove this wrong.

I see your point now.

The thing is, the ongoing lower costs as technology iimproves do not change the fact that making a car without a device like this is still cheaper than one with the device.

The car price might not go up because of other reasons, but the car is still cheaper without the device than with it.

The device might not raise the price of cars over what they are, but it raises the prices of the cars over what the price would be without the device.

The thing is, the device is worth the cost.

 

[Craig234]

man, this thread proves it. people love their fucking cars.

Then why do they want to see their cars destroyed or damaged by drunk drivers so badly, over a moronic, childish paranoia over the sobriety device?

 

[Craig234]

If you don't care, why are you bothering to post replies?

I don't care about your opinion of my posts. I care about the issue of drunk driving.

Mandatory devices in all cars will not significantly lower drunk driving incidents.

Yes, it will. Let's see your evidence for your claim.

In fact, I've seen evidence it greatly reduces drunk driving *by convicted drunk drivers* who have had to use the devices.

A minority might find ways around them - but you're wrong, and better devices might reduce rates even further.

Sure, a minority, for example might get around a 'start the car' device by illegally bringing booze with them and drinking while driving after starting the car sober.

In some especially extreme cases. Ignoring issues like that it leaves them drunk at their destination unable to start the car to get home.

But it would have even greater benefit among the general public, who are less likly to use such measures - such as those who are leaving bars or parties drunk.[/quote]

When you force something undesirable on consumers by government mandate you usually end up with all sorts of ways around it. If all new cars come with these devices, you'll have a lot of people finding simple ways around it.. including holding onto their existing cars for as long as they can.

Ideological dogma unsupported by any evidence that would prevent significant implementation here.

People still 'get around' mandated seat belts every day - some are caught and ticketed - but the use is hugely up, and the casualties are hugely down.

Presumably, cars would be required to have devices added - one method would be to require this to be certified by the next registration, like smog certification.

To have a snowball's chance in hell of being effective, police will have to start checking drivers at random to make sure their device is functioning. The people who drive drunk will still find ways to drive drunk. Are people who don't buy a new car going to be forced to bring their vehicle in to have the device installed? If so... good luck.

No, they won't. Devices can be checked like smog checks are done. This has already been solved for drunk drivers who need the devices now.

Also, a malfunctioning device would presumably prevent the car from being started most of the time, which would require repair.

Stick to what works... devices in the vehicles of offenders. Force it in everyone's vehicle and it won't significantly reduce the problem.

You think that repeating that refutes the fact that 2/3 of new drunk driving arrest are FIRST TIME OFFENDERS who WOULD be greatly reduced by the device. It doesn't.

 

[Craig234]

Craig made the point that they were.

No, I did not. Do not misrepresent my position.

 

[bfdd]

there is no way possible to justify this price. you're trying to justify legislation that is being written because you assume everyone is guilty. you're a fucking douche bag. a very very small percentage of the population gets busted for DUIs and the problems from DUIs are mostly caused by REPEAT OFFENDERS. I can't find the stats, but I remember reading that somewhere around half of DUI offenders are repeat offenders.

Crack down on those assholes, don't cause the rest of us some discomfort because you're irrational. I guess you guys feel all the new TSA screening shit is fine and dandy as well right?

 

[KMFJD]

No, they won't.

Your comment is ignorant speculation that argues against something useful idiotically.

Reminds me of the mentality of people who argued against fluoridation of water because of the same sort of idiocy.

No, if that became law, people would and will find a way around them and some would definitely profit from circumventing them, to believe otherwise is foolish.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't care about your opinion of my posts. I care about the issue of drunk driving.

For not caring about it, you sure spend an awful lot of time responding to my "opinion".

Yes, it will. Let's see your evidence for your claim.

In fact, I've seen evidence it greatly reduces drunk driving *by convicted drunk drivers* who have had to use the devices.

A minority might find ways around them - but you're wrong, and better devices might reduce rates even further.

There's plenty of evidence of people "sticking it to the man". Speeding is illegal and proactively addressed, but lots of people do it anyway. Marijuana is illegal and proactively addressed, but lots of people do it anyway. Lots of people get creative with their income tax deductions, even though they face serious fines and/or jail time. Illegal file sharing has never been more popular or more easy. Jailbreaks for Apple's iOS come out almost immediately after a new version of iOS is released.

Sure, a minority, for example might get around a 'start the car' device by illegally bringing booze with them and drinking while driving after starting the car sober.

Few people actually drink while driving anyway, so your claim that the example you outlined would be a minority event is not particularly relevant. What's a lot more common, though, are the things that more than a small minority would do if, for example, these devices were mandated on all cars and, particularly, if they "phoned home" periodically to let the DMV or the police know they're still active. More than a small minority do not want this device in their vehicles.. some in that group are casual or indifferent about driving while intoxicated, and some refuse to submit to government-mandated nannying to thwart behavior they weren't going to participate in anyway.

But it would have even greater benefit among the general public, who are less likly to use such measures - such as those who are leaving bars or parties drunk.

The people who leave bars or parties drunk.. and drive.. are the same kinds of people who are more likely to circumvent these devices.

People still 'get around' mandated seat belts every day - some are caught and ticketed - but the use is hugely up, and the casualties are hugely down.

People have the choice of using seat belts or not using them. That's not exactly the scenario with these devices.

Presumably, cars would be required to have devices added - one method would be to require this to be certified by the next registration, like smog certification.

Yup, enable the device when getting registered.. disable it the rest of the time. That's what the people who need these devices are most likely to do. Everyone else already doesn't drive drunk.. so the device would be unnecessary. Cars don't need unnecessary government-mandated things in them.

No, they won't. Devices can be checked like smog checks are done. This has already been solved for drunk drivers who need the devices now.

Convicted drunk drivers are known to the police. Everyone else isn't.. so in order to catch drunk drivers who haven't been caught before you're going to need random checks. Those who don't care if they drive drunk or buzzed will circumvent the device except when it's necessary to enable it.. like at a periodic event like an emissions test or vehicle registration.

Also, a malfunctioning device would presumably prevent the car from being started most of the time, which would require repair.

That's a simple roadblock for someone who wants to circumvent the device. Where there's a will, there's a way.

You think that repeating that refutes the fact that 2/3 of new drunk driving arrest are FIRST TIME OFFENDERS who WOULD be greatly reduced by the device. It doesn't.

The bolded is not a fact.

 

[CycloWizard]

No one has yet posted any study or facts that these things will lower DUI by even a trivial amount while they are fully functional. Some of us have posted economic estimates demonstrating the complete financial infeasibility of the bill. Anyone with a brain knows how easy the device would be to bypass. So what we have here is a completely one-sided debate in which those wishing to impose their will on everyone else adding those of us bringing a reality check to the discussion to their ignore lists. Classy.

I wonder if eskimospy will ever attempt to re-enter the thread? I wonder if Craig will ever post any evidence that these things will make even the slightest headway against the DUI rate? I'm not holding my breath. This issue is the quintessential progressive stance: we ought to do something to save everyone, so we'll pass a law to make it happen. Well, no one disagrees that reducing DUI is a good thing. The problem is that this measure imposes a huge burden on society for what will inevitably be virtually no gain. In fact, if these devices are universal, enforcement would almost surely go down and we could actually see an increase in DUI as a result per my previous analysis.

 

[Craig234]

For not caring about it, you sure spend an awful lot of time responding to my "opinion".

Actually, I spent zero time responding to your opinion of my posts. I only said I don't care about it You are bringing it up over and over, not hearing very well.

There's plenty of evidence of people "sticking it to the man". Speeding is illegal and proactively addressed, but lots of people do it anyway.[/qote

Then clearly getting rid of all speeding laws and enforcement would not cause any increase in speeding, you say?

Lots of people get creative with their income tax deductions, even though they face serious fines and/or jail time.[/quote

Then clearly all tax laws and enforcement of them can be removed and people will not pay any less tax, right?

Illegal file sharing has never been more popular or more easy. Jailbreaks for Apple's iOS come out almost immediately after a new version of iOS is released.

Yes, because pirating is NO EASIER than defeating a sobriety device. Which is why there are SO MANY STUDIES - in fact, as many as zero - showing they don't help.

Few people actually drink while driving anyway, so your claim that the example you outlined would be a minority event is not particularly relevant. What's a lot more common, though, are the things that more than a small minority would do if, for example, these devices were mandated on all cars and, particularly, if they "phoned home" periodically to let the DMV or the police know they're still active. More than a small minority do not want this device in their vehicles.. some in that group are casual or indifferent about driving while intoxicated, and some refuse to submit to government-mandated nannying to thwart behavior they weren't going to participate in anyway.

While your determination to be an idiot is indisputable, you are struggling to really make the whole idiocy argument, so let me help you by laying it out for you.

You need to embrace the idiocy, and say that the general public will be filled with millions of people who are SO OUTRAGED by this government tyranny, that in protest they will START TO DRIVE DRUNK, evading the machines, in protest and civil disobedience. So, the machines will GREATLY INCREASE DRUNK DRIVING.

This fits the idiotic right-wing ideology to a tee, including the whole 'the governemnt tries to improve the problem and screws it up' angle.

Come on, stop pussyfooting with half-ass idiocy, and go for it. CRAIG234 ADVOCATES INCREASE IN DRUNK DRIVING AND SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS, you can shout.

The people who leave bars or parties drunk.. and drive.. are the same kinds of people who are more likely to circumvent these devices.

No, they're not. The serious, repeat drunk driver, facing huge penalties for repeat offenses and wants to offend constantly, is the more likely to search for evading it.

The casual people are far more likely to be prevented from driving, far moire likely for the machine's hand in their face saying 'you can't drive, you're drunk' getting compliance, overriding their impaired judgement to 'take the chance', to have people who might not confront them about driving refuse to knowingly help them evade the machine preventing it. It's one thing for them to not demand keys, and quite another for them to hand their own keys over. You have presented ZERO evidence.