If All Car manufacturers wants to install Alcohol Breathalizer in vehicles as standard options

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Drink too much, go to jail...or call a cab...I don't care how nice of a guy you are, or how good of a driver you are, if you've had one or 2 too many, you don't belong behind the wheel...
The CHP has been running a new campaign here...Buzzed driving IS drunk driving...

Apparently you haven't heard some of the horror stories. You know, the kind where a guy gets pulled over for having a slightly dimmer left tail-light than his right and then blowing a .08 even though he doesn't even feel buzzed and is not a threat on the road. Next thing you know, he loses his job and his family is in a world of hurt. There is a NIGHT AND DAY difference between the guys who get completely plastered, pass out at the wheel, and are reckless drivers to begin with, then the type of person i mentioned above. Therefore, the penalty should be a night and day difference.

Agreed. There should still be a penalty for driving above the limit (although I'd be in favor of raising it back up to .10 or .12), but if you have a clear history, didn't harm anyone else on the road, and appeared to be in control of your faculties, it shouldn't be steep enough to alter the course of your life. Just something that'll have enough of an impact to give you pause the next time you're in a similar situation.

Why do you think they lowered it to .08? To raise more money.

We have become disillusioned by MADD.

How many people have actually died be being hit by a drunk driver?

Then take that number against the number of DUI tickets issued.

Then ask what was that drunk drivers BAC? My guess its a heck of alot higher than .08 or .1 or .12

 

[Raduque]

I am vehemently opposed to this. I would vote with my dollars, as would the rest of my family(and I have a fairly large one), and we would stop buying new cars, as I think would most people.

For those of you who do want this, go move to communist China. "He who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither"

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Sure, I'd support it. And, since so many accidents are caused by drinking and driving, I suppose that while I may pay a little more for the cost of the car, the cost of auto insurance might come down a little bit, offsetting the costs imposed upon me, while decreasing the likelihood that some idiot is going to run a stop sign and t-bone me.

Yea, because only drunks run stop signs. :disgust:

 

[Amused]

Absolutely not.

MADD must be stopped. They have become a prohibitionist organization rather than a valid effort to stop dangerous repeat drunk drivers.

Even the FOUNDER of MADD now denounces them.

 

[biggestmuff]

It would make more sense to have to swipe insert your drivers license into the vehicle.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I'd support it with a fifty-foot column of flame.

- M4H

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'd support it with a fifty-foot column of flame.

- M4H

I knew you were a flamer.

 

[Linflas]

Didn't we beat this poor horse senseless in this thread? DAMM is officially opposed to this.

 

[ranmaniac]

How about a box to keep a cell phone locked away, would be just as useful.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'd support it with a fifty-foot column of flame.

- M4H

I knew you were a flamer.

Thuper duper!

- M4H

 

[BoomerD]

See, NOW ya did it...you gave them the idea...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_hi_te/japan_toyota_drunken_driving_2
"Toyota creating alcohol detection system
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

The world's No. 2 automaker hopes to fit cars with the system by the end of 2009, according to the report. Calls to Toyota's headquarters in Nagoya rang unanswered on Wednesday, a public holiday.

Nissan Motor Co., another Japanese car manufacturer, has already been experimenting with breathalyzer-like devices that could detect if a driver was drunken. Similar technologies, such as alcohol ignition interlocks, are in use in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Concerns over drunken driving have surged in Japan following a series of alcohol-related accidents last year. In August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five, plunging them off a bridge and killing three children.

The incident prompted stepped-up roadside spot checks by police, who also plan to stiffen penalties for drunken driving.

 

[Ilikepiedoyou]

A simpler solution would be just revoke driving priveleges to those who consume alcohol, I mean they are ****** people to begin, they probably don't have anywhere important to be

 

[phantom309]

I find the whole idea incredibly invasive, demeaning and un-American. It makes me sad that so many people would so readily submit to it.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Raduque
I am vehemently opposed to this. I would vote with my dollars, as would the rest of my family(and I have a fairly large one), and we would stop buying new cars, as I think would most people.

For those of you who do want this, go move to communist China. "He who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither"

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Sure, I'd support it. And, since so many accidents are caused by drinking and driving, I suppose that while I may pay a little more for the cost of the car, the cost of auto insurance might come down a little bit, offsetting the costs imposed upon me, while decreasing the likelihood that some idiot is going to run a stop sign and t-bone me.

Yea, because only drunks run stop signs. :disgust:

Do you not comprehend the term "decreasing"?? Or are you the typical pig-headed person who refuses to even attempt to comprehend something because your mind is made up. Personally, if it was demonstrated to me that the net cost to me was zero, I'd say yes without hesitation. If even 1 accident out of 100 was caused by dwi, the likelihood of dying in a car accident would decrease, at zero cost to me. "Oh noooo, they're taking away my right to drive drunk if I think I can handle it!" Ohh please. "Oh no, now something else could break and cause my car to be inoperable" Yeah, add that to the 100 or so other things that could go wrong. Stupid automakers; why don't they make timing chains that last forever, transmissions that never break, tires that never go flat, batteries that never die, fuses that have to be replaced,... Now, another thing.

 

[DrPizza]

I would if it's only enabled by a court order (ie I get busted for DUI and then have to use the thing to drive in my car).

Yeah, that's a really good point. Because no one ever gets into an accident the first time they drive while intoxicated. Also, don't believe those stories about sex - you really can't get your girlfriend pregnant the first time...

edit: read the statistics on this page: here (just a site I grabbed at random). Now, divide each category by 4, to make up for the likely exaggeration (thus, probably giving a lower than actual estimate). It's hard not to believe that it's an excellent safety feature to have for the rest of us on the road.

 

[Howard]

No.