MADD campaingning to erradicate drunk driving entirely

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Find me a legal document that says using your computer is a right.

I never claimed it was a right. however, Its a lot harder for me to drive my computer @ 60 mph under the influence tho and kill a family of 4. For starters my computer doesnt even have wheels and I don't know how I could steer while holding the monitor. Then there is the problem of power...where am i am going to get an extension cord that long for those longer trips. ........

What about that stash of kiddie porn you have?

literally millions of people drive under the influence daily. I'm not quite sure that same # use there computers for whatever activities you are trying to make the comparison too.

So, what's the cutoff for the privacy invasion? Millions of people? How many millions? Or maybe just hundreds of thousands? What's the cutoff?

BTW, do you have a link supporting your claim that "literally millions of people drive under the influence daily."?

I dont think it takes a link to figure out. Go out to any resaturant/bar/club on any given day and observe everyone that has an alchoholic beverage. I'm certain at least a few million people each day consume an alcholic beverage and I dont think its difficult to assume at least 10-20% of those people will drive home at the end of there dinner or happy hour or whatever it is.

You want to bring out numbers then support them with evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Also, I'm still waiting on what is the cutoff limit before we use those "numbers" for another privacy invasion like this.

how is this a privacy invasion.......??????? there is no reports to authorities. your car starts or it doesn't.

The right to privacy is the right to control information about yourself in two situations. You have the right to exclude information about yourself and you have the right to be left alone (Business Law, PBS episode aired December 15th).

Still waiting on numbers and evidence.

you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

ALCOHOL
Alcohol is the drug that is consumed by the greatest number of users?and by a considerable margin. Roughly two-thirds of the American population age 12 and older (in 1994, this figure was 67 percent) say that they have used alcohol once or more in the past year; 54 percent did so in the past month; and in 1993, just over one in five (21.5 percent) say that they drank once a week or more during the past year (HHS, 1994a, p.119; 1995a, p.85). The "Monitoring the Future" study of secondary, high school, and college students and young adults also shows high levels of alcohol use. Nearly half of eighth-graders (47 percent for 1994) had consumed alcohol in the past year, and nearly a fifth (18 percent) admitted having being drunk at least once during that period of time. Half of high school seniors (50 percent) said that they had drunk alcohol in the past month; over seven out of 10 college students (72 percent) and noncollege young adults (70 percent) had done so (Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 1994, pp.85, 162; 1995, p.43).
Sales of alcohol average out to roughly 2.3 gallons of absolute alcohol per person for the population age 18 or older per year, or just under one ounce per person per day (Williams, Clem, and Dufor, 1994, p.15). This means that the American population as a whole consumes about 60 to 70 billion "doses" of alcohol per year. (Keep in mind that distilled beverages are 40 to 50 percent alcohol, wine is 12 percent, and beer is about 4 percent; thus, how much alcohol is consumed in a given quantity of a beverage has to be calculated from its potency.) However, there is great variation from one person to another in the amount of alcohol consumed. There is a kind of polarization in use: While one-third of the American population is made up of abstainers, and over half are moderate or "social" drinkers, that very small one-tenth of the population which is made up of the heaviest drinkers imbibes more than half the total alcohol consumed. Thus, the category "drinker" or alcohol "user" represents an extremely mixed bag. It should be emphasized that the concept "alcoholic" is extremely controversial; different experts define it radically differently, and the field cannot agree on how many alcoholics there are in the population (Hilton, 1989). However, taking as our handy working definition of addiction the use of a psychoactive substance on a frequent, repetitive, and compulsive basis to the point of physical or psychological dependence, one researcher estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million alcohol addicts in the United States today (Goldstein, 1994, pp.7, 263).

Where's the bit about "literally millions drive under the influence daily"? I don't see anything there supporting your claim.

common sense man. if 30 million people consumer one alchoholic beverage per day. Is it so hard to assume 1/30th of them are driving......i think that would be a conservative estimate. you wont find that statistic though as its impossible to prove. Common sense should prevail here.

Common sense tells me that MANY of those people would NOT be over the legal limit.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
I think it would need to be determined at the federal level what the limit should be. Right now each state has its own laws its very uncertain....why am drunk in CT but in New Orleans I'm good to drive after a couple more drinks. A standard needs to be set. What is that standard? I do not know. But as a whole this country is moving quickly towards zero tolerance.

It already has been, nitwit. The feds declared 0.08 was the limit or they withhold highway funds. All states have adopted 0.08.

Any more ignorant statements to make?

As for zero tolerance, I've implemented a Zero Tolerance for Dipsh!ts policy. Hence my constant verbal assaults on you.

yeah but the states have implemented other levels. In some states it is .06

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Find me a legal document that says using your computer is a right.

I never claimed it was a right. however, Its a lot harder for me to drive my computer @ 60 mph under the influence tho and kill a family of 4. For starters my computer doesnt even have wheels and I don't know how I could steer while holding the monitor. Then there is the problem of power...where am i am going to get an extension cord that long for those longer trips. ........

What about that stash of kiddie porn you have?

literally millions of people drive under the influence daily. I'm not quite sure that same # use there computers for whatever activities you are trying to make the comparison too.

So, what's the cutoff for the privacy invasion? Millions of people? How many millions? Or maybe just hundreds of thousands? What's the cutoff?

BTW, do you have a link supporting your claim that "literally millions of people drive under the influence daily."?

I dont think it takes a link to figure out. Go out to any resaturant/bar/club on any given day and observe everyone that has an alchoholic beverage. I'm certain at least a few million people each day consume an alcholic beverage and I dont think its difficult to assume at least 10-20% of those people will drive home at the end of there dinner or happy hour or whatever it is.

You want to bring out numbers then support them with evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Also, I'm still waiting on what is the cutoff limit before we use those "numbers" for another privacy invasion like this.

how is this a privacy invasion.......??????? there is no reports to authorities. your car starts or it doesn't.

The right to privacy is the right to control information about yourself in two situations. You have the right to exclude information about yourself and you have the right to be left alone (Business Law, PBS episode aired December 15th).

Still waiting on numbers and evidence.

you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

ALCOHOL
Alcohol is the drug that is consumed by the greatest number of users?and by a considerable margin. Roughly two-thirds of the American population age 12 and older (in 1994, this figure was 67 percent) say that they have used alcohol once or more in the past year; 54 percent did so in the past month; and in 1993, just over one in five (21.5 percent) say that they drank once a week or more during the past year (HHS, 1994a, p.119; 1995a, p.85). The "Monitoring the Future" study of secondary, high school, and college students and young adults also shows high levels of alcohol use. Nearly half of eighth-graders (47 percent for 1994) had consumed alcohol in the past year, and nearly a fifth (18 percent) admitted having being drunk at least once during that period of time. Half of high school seniors (50 percent) said that they had drunk alcohol in the past month; over seven out of 10 college students (72 percent) and noncollege young adults (70 percent) had done so (Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 1994, pp.85, 162; 1995, p.43).
Sales of alcohol average out to roughly 2.3 gallons of absolute alcohol per person for the population age 18 or older per year, or just under one ounce per person per day (Williams, Clem, and Dufor, 1994, p.15). This means that the American population as a whole consumes about 60 to 70 billion "doses" of alcohol per year. (Keep in mind that distilled beverages are 40 to 50 percent alcohol, wine is 12 percent, and beer is about 4 percent; thus, how much alcohol is consumed in a given quantity of a beverage has to be calculated from its potency.) However, there is great variation from one person to another in the amount of alcohol consumed. There is a kind of polarization in use: While one-third of the American population is made up of abstainers, and over half are moderate or "social" drinkers, that very small one-tenth of the population which is made up of the heaviest drinkers imbibes more than half the total alcohol consumed. Thus, the category "drinker" or alcohol "user" represents an extremely mixed bag. It should be emphasized that the concept "alcoholic" is extremely controversial; different experts define it radically differently, and the field cannot agree on how many alcoholics there are in the population (Hilton, 1989). However, taking as our handy working definition of addiction the use of a psychoactive substance on a frequent, repetitive, and compulsive basis to the point of physical or psychological dependence, one researcher estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million alcohol addicts in the United States today (Goldstein, 1994, pp.7, 263).

Where's the bit about "literally millions drive under the influence daily"? I don't see anything there supporting your claim.

common sense man. if 30 million people consumer one alchoholic beverage per day. Is it so hard to assume 1/30th of them are driving......i think that would be a conservative estimate. you wont find that statistic though as its impossible to prove. Common sense should prevail here.

I don't see anything about people driving there. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Find me a legal document that says using your computer is a right.

I never claimed it was a right. however, Its a lot harder for me to drive my computer @ 60 mph under the influence tho and kill a family of 4. For starters my computer doesnt even have wheels and I don't know how I could steer while holding the monitor. Then there is the problem of power...where am i am going to get an extension cord that long for those longer trips. ........

What about that stash of kiddie porn you have?

literally millions of people drive under the influence daily. I'm not quite sure that same # use there computers for whatever activities you are trying to make the comparison too.

So, what's the cutoff for the privacy invasion? Millions of people? How many millions? Or maybe just hundreds of thousands? What's the cutoff?

BTW, do you have a link supporting your claim that "literally millions of people drive under the influence daily."?

I dont think it takes a link to figure out. Go out to any resaturant/bar/club on any given day and observe everyone that has an alchoholic beverage. I'm certain at least a few million people each day consume an alcholic beverage and I dont think its difficult to assume at least 10-20% of those people will drive home at the end of there dinner or happy hour or whatever it is.

You want to bring out numbers then support them with evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Also, I'm still waiting on what is the cutoff limit before we use those "numbers" for another privacy invasion like this.

how is this a privacy invasion.......??????? there is no reports to authorities. your car starts or it doesn't.

The right to privacy is the right to control information about yourself in two situations. You have the right to exclude information about yourself and you have the right to be left alone (Business Law, PBS episode aired December 15th).

Still waiting on numbers and evidence.

you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

ALCOHOL
Alcohol is the drug that is consumed by the greatest number of users?and by a considerable margin. Roughly two-thirds of the American population age 12 and older (in 1994, this figure was 67 percent) say that they have used alcohol once or more in the past year; 54 percent did so in the past month; and in 1993, just over one in five (21.5 percent) say that they drank once a week or more during the past year (HHS, 1994a, p.119; 1995a, p.85). The "Monitoring the Future" study of secondary, high school, and college students and young adults also shows high levels of alcohol use. Nearly half of eighth-graders (47 percent for 1994) had consumed alcohol in the past year, and nearly a fifth (18 percent) admitted having being drunk at least once during that period of time. Half of high school seniors (50 percent) said that they had drunk alcohol in the past month; over seven out of 10 college students (72 percent) and noncollege young adults (70 percent) had done so (Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 1994, pp.85, 162; 1995, p.43).
Sales of alcohol average out to roughly 2.3 gallons of absolute alcohol per person for the population age 18 or older per year, or just under one ounce per person per day (Williams, Clem, and Dufor, 1994, p.15). This means that the American population as a whole consumes about 60 to 70 billion "doses" of alcohol per year. (Keep in mind that distilled beverages are 40 to 50 percent alcohol, wine is 12 percent, and beer is about 4 percent; thus, how much alcohol is consumed in a given quantity of a beverage has to be calculated from its potency.) However, there is great variation from one person to another in the amount of alcohol consumed. There is a kind of polarization in use: While one-third of the American population is made up of abstainers, and over half are moderate or "social" drinkers, that very small one-tenth of the population which is made up of the heaviest drinkers imbibes more than half the total alcohol consumed. Thus, the category "drinker" or alcohol "user" represents an extremely mixed bag. It should be emphasized that the concept "alcoholic" is extremely controversial; different experts define it radically differently, and the field cannot agree on how many alcoholics there are in the population (Hilton, 1989). However, taking as our handy working definition of addiction the use of a psychoactive substance on a frequent, repetitive, and compulsive basis to the point of physical or psychological dependence, one researcher estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million alcohol addicts in the United States today (Goldstein, 1994, pp.7, 263).

Where's the bit about "literally millions drive under the influence daily"? I don't see anything there supporting your claim.

common sense man. if 30 million people consumer one alchoholic beverage per day. Is it so hard to assume 1/30th of them are driving......i think that would be a conservative estimate. you wont find that statistic though as its impossible to prove. Common sense should prevail here.

Common sense tells me that MANY of those people would NOT be over the legal limit.

I didn't say that I said under the influence. I didn't say drunk, or over the limit. I carefully chose those words because an officer can arrest you for driving under the influence even if you pass a Breathalyzer.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Find me a legal document that says using your computer is a right.

I never claimed it was a right. however, Its a lot harder for me to drive my computer @ 60 mph under the influence tho and kill a family of 4. For starters my computer doesnt even have wheels and I don't know how I could steer while holding the monitor. Then there is the problem of power...where am i am going to get an extension cord that long for those longer trips. ........

What about that stash of kiddie porn you have?

literally millions of people drive under the influence daily. I'm not quite sure that same # use there computers for whatever activities you are trying to make the comparison too.

So, what's the cutoff for the privacy invasion? Millions of people? How many millions? Or maybe just hundreds of thousands? What's the cutoff?

BTW, do you have a link supporting your claim that "literally millions of people drive under the influence daily."?

I dont think it takes a link to figure out. Go out to any resaturant/bar/club on any given day and observe everyone that has an alchoholic beverage. I'm certain at least a few million people each day consume an alcholic beverage and I dont think its difficult to assume at least 10-20% of those people will drive home at the end of there dinner or happy hour or whatever it is.

You want to bring out numbers then support them with evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Also, I'm still waiting on what is the cutoff limit before we use those "numbers" for another privacy invasion like this.

how is this a privacy invasion.......??????? there is no reports to authorities. your car starts or it doesn't.

The right to privacy is the right to control information about yourself in two situations. You have the right to exclude information about yourself and you have the right to be left alone (Business Law, PBS episode aired December 15th).

Still waiting on numbers and evidence.

you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

ALCOHOL
Alcohol is the drug that is consumed by the greatest number of users?and by a considerable margin. Roughly two-thirds of the American population age 12 and older (in 1994, this figure was 67 percent) say that they have used alcohol once or more in the past year; 54 percent did so in the past month; and in 1993, just over one in five (21.5 percent) say that they drank once a week or more during the past year (HHS, 1994a, p.119; 1995a, p.85). The "Monitoring the Future" study of secondary, high school, and college students and young adults also shows high levels of alcohol use. Nearly half of eighth-graders (47 percent for 1994) had consumed alcohol in the past year, and nearly a fifth (18 percent) admitted having being drunk at least once during that period of time. Half of high school seniors (50 percent) said that they had drunk alcohol in the past month; over seven out of 10 college students (72 percent) and noncollege young adults (70 percent) had done so (Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 1994, pp.85, 162; 1995, p.43).
Sales of alcohol average out to roughly 2.3 gallons of absolute alcohol per person for the population age 18 or older per year, or just under one ounce per person per day (Williams, Clem, and Dufor, 1994, p.15). This means that the American population as a whole consumes about 60 to 70 billion "doses" of alcohol per year. (Keep in mind that distilled beverages are 40 to 50 percent alcohol, wine is 12 percent, and beer is about 4 percent; thus, how much alcohol is consumed in a given quantity of a beverage has to be calculated from its potency.) However, there is great variation from one person to another in the amount of alcohol consumed. There is a kind of polarization in use: While one-third of the American population is made up of abstainers, and over half are moderate or "social" drinkers, that very small one-tenth of the population which is made up of the heaviest drinkers imbibes more than half the total alcohol consumed. Thus, the category "drinker" or alcohol "user" represents an extremely mixed bag. It should be emphasized that the concept "alcoholic" is extremely controversial; different experts define it radically differently, and the field cannot agree on how many alcoholics there are in the population (Hilton, 1989). However, taking as our handy working definition of addiction the use of a psychoactive substance on a frequent, repetitive, and compulsive basis to the point of physical or psychological dependence, one researcher estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million alcohol addicts in the United States today (Goldstein, 1994, pp.7, 263).

Where's the bit about "literally millions drive under the influence daily"? I don't see anything there supporting your claim.

common sense man. if 30 million people consumer one alchoholic beverage per day. Is it so hard to assume 1/30th of them are driving......i think that would be a conservative estimate. you wont find that statistic though as its impossible to prove. Common sense should prevail here.

Common sense tells me that MANY of those people would NOT be over the legal limit.

I didn't say that I said under the influence. I didn't say drunk, or over the limit. I carefully chose those words because an officer can arrest you for driving under the influence even if you pass a Breathalyzer.

But where do you draw the line to make someone's car not start?

 

[Thraxen]

Damn... knock off the nested quotes! At least edit out all but the part to which you are directly replying.

Anyway, I could see how having one of these in all cars would dramatically cut down on drunk driving, but I'm not sure the precedence that would set would be worth it.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

 

[waggy]

I think its a bad idea. not to mention these device's have been proven to fail most of the time. yes over time they will get better. but how many people are going to get in trouble with work, the courts, maybe even lifes from it failing when they need it to work.


I do think that anyone who gets nailed with more then ONE DUI should have one. actually scratch that. i think anyone who gets 2 DUI's should lose the privilage to drive. no special license to get to work or school.

I feel the punishment for the first dui is fine. but 2nd+ is not. they need to be very harsh on them for any past the first. i know one guy who has 6 DUI's and still driving. sure he spent a few months in jail but that is nothing. take away his liscense and if you see him driving throw him in jail for a long time.

 

[TravisT]

The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim


I didn't say that I said under the influence. I didn't say drunk, or over the limit. I carefully chose those words because an officer can arrest you for driving under the influence even if you pass a Breathalyzer.

But where do you draw the line to make someone's car not start?

I previously said it should be whatever the feds determine is the limit. Boberfett informed me the official limit the feds have said is .08

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

Well we already allow officers to use radar/laser on you car to determine your speed. Is this an invasion of privacy too? Are you being treated like a criminal?

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: TravisT
The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

Wear gloves?

What if i've touched alchohol but haven't drank any?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waggy
I think its a bad idea. not to mention these device's have been proven to fail most of the time. yes over time they will get better. but how many people are going to get in trouble with work, the courts, maybe even lifes from it failing when they need it to work.


I do think that anyone who gets nailed with more then ONE DUI should have one. actually scratch that. i think anyone who gets 2 DUI's should lose the privilage to drive. no special license to get to work or school.

I feel the punishment for the first dui is fine. but 2nd+ is not. they need to be very harsh on them for any past the first. i know one guy who has 6 DUI's and still driving. sure he spent a few months in jail but that is nothing. take away his liscense and if you see him driving throw him in jail for a long time.

There are serious reprecussions on society for someone who cannot drive especially if they aren't in an urban area. They will not be able to hold a job. No job = desperation = resorting to crime to get by. All that can be avoided don't let them make the mistake in the first place.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: TravisT
The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

Wear gloves?

What if i've touched alchohol but haven't drank any?

I'm guessing gloves wouldnt allow for any blood reading. it would need to be able to verify that yes a human hand was on the wheel. If there is alchohol on your hands I'd consider drying your hands and trying again. You are looking for extreme examples for why it wouldnt work instead of how it could work.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

Right, so if the meter fails or false positives you aren't being bothered?

Well, I guess you're right, you won't be able to go anywhere to have someone bother you...

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

Well we already allow officers to use radar/laser on you car to determine your speed. Is this an invasion of privacy too? Are you being treated like a criminal?

Radar is a lot different than a device in your car that keeps you from driving.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
you are being left alone. Nobody is bothering you. Your car starts or it doesnt. Its only a bother to you if you are trying to break the law. I'd say checkpoints are many times more bothersome.

Right, so if the meter fails or false positives you aren't being bothered?

Well, I guess you're right, you won't be able to go anywhere to have someone bother you...

I'm sure the technology is there to reduce these incidents so that it is a minimal occurence. We can build jumbo jet engines that only have in flight failures every 30 years. Im sure we can engineer this technology with a high degree of accuracy.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: TravisT
The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

Wear gloves?

What if i've touched alchohol but haven't drank any?

what about bartenders? what about non-drinking alchohol? what if i go toa bar and get a beer and spill it on myself? what it if malfunctions?

heh i went to a party about 2 years ago at a friends house. me and his wife were jokeing around. she is a huge sox fan and i am cubs fan. anyway. she spilled her beer. she riped it up but had a lot on her hand. so she rubbed it on my head because i was laughing at her.

I had just baugt a used caviler. it had the lights for brights in a weird place. i was not used to them. well a car was headed toward me and i was really slow on getting the lights. he turned around and pulled me over.

oh man i stunk of beer. he asked why and i told him what happened (my hair was sticky and smelly). he just laughed and told me to watch it. some cops will nail me for that.

in that situation my car would not have started. even though i was sober. stinky but sober!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waggy
I think its a bad idea. not to mention these device's have been proven to fail most of the time. yes over time they will get better. but how many people are going to get in trouble with work, the courts, maybe even lifes from it failing when they need it to work.


I do think that anyone who gets nailed with more then ONE DUI should have one. actually scratch that. i think anyone who gets 2 DUI's should lose the privilage to drive. no special license to get to work or school.

I feel the punishment for the first dui is fine. but 2nd+ is not. they need to be very harsh on them for any past the first. i know one guy who has 6 DUI's and still driving. sure he spent a few months in jail but that is nothing. take away his liscense and if you see him driving throw him in jail for a long time.

There are serious reprecussions on society for someone who cannot drive especially if they aren't in an urban area. They will not be able to hold a job. No job = desperation = resorting to crime to get by. All that can be avoided don't let them make the mistake in the first place.

then they shouldnt get DUI #2. i would rather overly punish someone who has done something wrong then punish the innocent.

but you are right. perhaps just letting them drive to/from work. maybe set up a GPS type to make sure.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: TravisT
The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

Wear gloves?

What if i've touched alchohol but haven't drank any?

what about bartenders? what about non-drinking alchohol? what if i go toa bar and get a beer and spill it on myself? what it if malfunctions?

heh i went to a party about 2 years ago at a friends house. me and his wife were jokeing around. she is a huge sox fan and i am cubs fan. anyway. she spilled her beer. she riped it up but had a lot on her hand. so she rubbed it on my head because i was laughing at her.

I had just baugt a used caviler. it had the lights for brights in a weird place. i was not used to them. well a car was headed toward me and i was really slow on getting the lights. he turned around and pulled me over.

oh man i stunk of beer. he asked why and i told him what happened (my hair was sticky and smelly). he just laughed and told me to watch it. some cops will nail me for that.

in that situation my car would not have started. even though i was sober. stinky but sober!

again stop searching for extreme cases why it wouldnt work instead think of how it can work. a simple solution is to just wash your damn hands if they are soaked in booze.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: TravisT
The technology was said to happen on contact through your skin on the steering wheel. There would be no penalty to having this technology for those that didn't drive intoxicated. I would be in favor of having the technology to know that my safety is being looked after while i'm on the road. Afterall, many cases the drunken driver survives the fatality accident in which they caused.

This isn't about protecting the drunken drivers, because hoenstly, i don't care. I care about my child in the backseat of my car when the intoxicated person steps behind the wheel of a car.

Wear gloves?

What if i've touched alchohol but haven't drank any?

I'm guessing gloves wouldnt allow for any blood reading. it would need to be able to verify that yes a human hand was on the wheel. If there is alchohol on your hands I'd consider drying your hands and trying again. You are looking for extreme examples for why it wouldnt work instead of how it could work.

Thats just it though. There are too many ways the system wouldnt work as intended. I sure as hell dont want my car not starting when I have every right (yes, right) to drive.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

Well we already allow officers to use radar/laser on you car to determine your speed. Is this an invasion of privacy too? Are you being treated like a criminal?

We already allow officers to pull you over for suspected DUI as well.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waggy
I think its a bad idea. not to mention these device's have been proven to fail most of the time. yes over time they will get better. but how many people are going to get in trouble with work, the courts, maybe even lifes from it failing when they need it to work.


I do think that anyone who gets nailed with more then ONE DUI should have one. actually scratch that. i think anyone who gets 2 DUI's should lose the privilage to drive. no special license to get to work or school.

I feel the punishment for the first dui is fine. but 2nd+ is not. they need to be very harsh on them for any past the first. i know one guy who has 6 DUI's and still driving. sure he spent a few months in jail but that is nothing. take away his liscense and if you see him driving throw him in jail for a long time.

There are serious reprecussions on society for someone who cannot drive especially if they aren't in an urban area. They will not be able to hold a job. No job = desperation = resorting to crime to get by. All that can be avoided don't let them make the mistake in the first place.

then they shouldnt get DUI #2. i would rather overly punish someone who has done something wrong then punish the innocent.

but you are right. perhaps just letting them drive to/from work. maybe set up a GPS type to make sure.

Its a very slippery slope once someone goes into the system. They tend to never get out. They go away to jail come out. no one will hire them now how can they feed there kids or pay rent? The system doesn't rehabilitate you. Its like criminal training school. He won't want to go back there probably but his need to survive surpasses that. and he will do what it takes to survive. but this is getting off the topic.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

Well we already allow officers to use radar/laser on you car to determine your speed. Is this an invasion of privacy too? Are you being treated like a criminal?

We already allow officers to pull you over for suspected DUI as well.

Actually if you want to get technical officers don't need a reason anymore to pull you over.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Also, what's the cutoff # needed before we get auto HDD scanners to check for kiddie porn or anytime of copyright infringement?

copyright infrigement is killing people?

Fine. How about speeders, dangerous & inappropriate lane changes, impeding the flow of traffic, not wearing a seatbelt, etc...

What's the cutoff # for those before we install something in all cars to make sure they follow the speed limit, make safe lane changes, not hold up traffic, wear their seatbelt?

Well we already allow officers to use radar/laser on you car to determine your speed. Is this an invasion of privacy too? Are you being treated like a criminal?

We already allow officers to pull you over for suspected DUI as well.

Actually if you want to get technical officers don't need a reason anymore to pull you over.

And this helps your argument how?