MADD campaingning to erradicate drunk driving entirely

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Drunk drivers out number police at least 1000 to 1

Again with your made up numbers.

are you arguing that police outnumber drunks?

No, but to say its 1000 to 1 is insane. People that speed outnumber cops by a whole lot more.

Exactly my point. Everyone rushing out of hartford, ct at 2 am when clubs close is more often than not under the influence. If there are 2 cops within the first 10 miles in each direction on the 2 major highways(91&84) (this is a high figure I rarely see any) thats 8 cops to handle the thousands of cars. If each cop can pull over only one car at a time perhaps 2. thats only 16 cars stopped out of the thousands leaving the city.......why is this so hard for anyone else to see?

Thousands of people legally drunk all at the same time? Whatever

Hes right, that many drunks on the road is commonplace, the only variable is the amount of intoxication. Take a drive at 2am on a main road.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I hope that everyone against the use of these devices is against warrantless wireless tapping as well, because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

Of course. What are you trying to say? That you're for this but against warrantless wireless tapping?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I hope that everyone against the use of these devices is against warrantless wireless tapping as well, because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

Of course. What are you trying to say? That you're for this but against warrantless wireless tapping?

No. I am against both.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Increase the penalties enough for people to ruin their lives for doing it, and then youre introduction "survival of the fittest" into the scheme

DUI - 5 years in jail
Accident resulting in a death - Automatic life

think about the long term affects that would hav eon society.

Designated drivers would be more popular?

Retards would go to jail for *gasp* being retarded and endagering peoples lives?

no we would have hardened criminals leaving jail (criminal training school)all the time........restaurants bars and clubs would close all over. thousands would be without jobs. think about it.

Oh nos! Not the bartender industry!

And i couldnt possibly care less about the "hardened criminal" mentality in reference to jails. They put themselves there, they ruin their own lives, and if they are stupid enough to break the law again, they go back to jail, again.

You wont see "hardened criminals" with a 150IQ, itll be the same tards halfway in the cell now.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
no we would have hardened criminals leaving jail (criminal training school)all the time........restaurants bars and clubs would close all over. thousands would be without jobs. think about it.

Those thousands of people who are without jobs because of going to prison, if they're the alcohol addicts you claim they are, they probably didn't have a job to begin with. And if they did, they won't after their car refuses to start every morning after a bender. You don't think things through very well do you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I hope that everyone against the use of these devices is against warrantless wireless tapping as well, because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

Of course. What are you trying to say? That you're for this but against warrantless wireless tapping?

No. I am against both.

Then why did you even bring it up? This thread is bad enough without irrelevancies. Or were you just trying to troll some partisan hackery? Take that to P&N.

 

[BoberFett]

Please answer my question.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

Why not? It's stopping you from from driving drunk and killing someone.

 

[Trell]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

So do you refuse to buy alcohol or tobacco products because they require proof of age? They are treating you like a criminal in the same way having to breath into your car to start it would... .

 

[jmdeathsquad]

obligatory pussification of America continues...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Please answer my question.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

Why not? It's stopping you from from driving drunk and killing someone.

"Most people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Trell

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

So do you refuse to buy alcohol or tobacco products because they require proof of age? They are treating you like a criminal in the same way having to breath into your car to start it would... .

Believe it or not, some of us are against drinking ages as well. Some European nations have no drinking age, yet they don't have nearly the teen drinking problem (especially binge drinking) we in the US do. If we didn't have a puritanical taboo and ridiculous blue laws regarding alcohol sales, we wouldn't need to present ID. So yes, some of us do feel like criminals when we're forced to prove we're old enough to buy alcohol. It's just another example of the nanny state trying to tell us how to live our lives, and we'd be happier without the meddling.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/145842,CST-EDT-edits22a.article

i think they should really push for this technology to be mandatory in all cars like a seat belt and airbags

There is a thing in this country where when you're innocent of doing something, you shouldn't have to pay a penalty for it. I don't drink & drive, and I don't want to have to blow into some device just to start my car.

Besides, those things don't work right half the time. A colleague of mine had to put one in his car, and half the time it just plain doesn't work and he can't go anywhere.

So thanks, but I'll pass

QFT. Better not swig some mouth wash before leaving your house, when you're in a rush to work or an interview.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Trell

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

So do you refuse to buy alcohol or tobacco products because they require proof of age? They are treating you like a criminal in the same way having to breath into your car to start it would... .

apples != oranges

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: B00ne
Wow I just checked some statistics - the US sure seems to have a problem with alcohol related fatalities: 39% of all.

Actually, fatalities are quite high in the US in general especially considering the speed limits

Have any statistics based on miles driven?

No, but I think for the US there are such statistics - however they would get those...
Besides, that should be fairly irrelevant. Most miles are certainly driven on interstates, and still have probably the lowest number of accidents/fatalities

Millage driven indicates how much time is spent on the roads. You can compare number of cars or number of drivers, but it's irrelavent if they only drive once a month. By that same token if someone two people commute to work each day, but one of them drives 3 hours each way while the other drives less than a mile, you're not going to get comparable results. If a person drives 100 miles in one year while getting in 4 accidents they are probably a worse driver than someone who drivers 200,000 miles and gets in 5 accidents.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Please answer my question.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

Why not? It's stopping you from from driving drunk and killing someone.

"Most people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov

He may or may not answer me. I don't blame him, I've been heckling pretty badly. (I hope he doesn't go Kramer on me)

Where I was going with that whole line of questioning was that it's going to come down to "But it's not me that's the problem. We need to stop other people from driving drunk, not me." That was the inevitable conclusion based on his answer of "It's worthless unless everyone does it." In reality, he's saying "People don't need protection from me, I need protection from them."

But then, why can't everyone else who thinks like him that they're not the problem get that same self exemption from presumed guilt? He's shown his true colors. He's an elitist bastard who thinks everyone else is the problem. So yeah, your quote pretty much nailed it.

 

[foghorn67]

I like my civil liberties. No thanks.

 

[Trell]

Besides, it's not about numbers, it's about stopping criminals. You don't support kiddie porn do you? Why do you hate children?

If he supposrts kiddie porn then its obvious that he LOVES children.. . .

 

[TravisT]

Only those without the ability to control themselves would object to this type of technology. It certainly wouldn't be an issue for me, because I don't drink at all, nor do I have any intentions of drinking. I am quite aware of the danger caused by those who do drink and drive though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Only those without the ability to control themselves would object to this type of technology. It certainly wouldn't be an issue for me, because I don't drink at all, nor do I have any intentions of drinking. I am quite aware of the danger caused by those who do drink and drive though.

Huh? Your logic is backwards. Those who are capable of controlling themselves are the ones that do not like to be controlled by others. Those who are incapable of controlling themselves are the ones that wish to be controlled by others.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

I'm sure you don't have a meth lab either but the pharmacy is still going to limit your sudafed purchases.

Yeah, because it's such an inconvenience that eh can't buy thousands of sudafed pills at one time. One might consider it to be inconvenient if they can't get home from dinner because they had one desert wine.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Trell

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

So do you refuse to buy alcohol or tobacco products because they require proof of age? They are treating you like a criminal in the same way having to breath into your car to start it would... .

apples != oranges

this entire thread has been an argument of apples and oranges kiddie porn, wire tapping....mouthwash......death penalty......i have a headache.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

I'm sure you don't have a meth lab either but the pharmacy is still going to limit your sudafed purchases.

Yeah, because it's such an inconvenience that eh can't buy thousands of sudafed pills at one time. One might consider it to be inconvenient if they can't get home from dinner because they had one desert wine.

if one drink or 1000 drinks gives you more than the legal limit then you shouldn't be driving. end of story.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Please answer my question.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

Why not? It's stopping you from from driving drunk and killing someone.

"Most people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov

He may or may not answer me. I don't blame him, I've been heckling pretty badly. (I hope he doesn't go Kramer on me)

Where I was going with that whole line of questioning was that it's going to come down to "But it's not me that's the problem. We need to stop other people from driving drunk, not me." That was the inevitable conclusion based on his answer of "It's worthless unless everyone does it." In reality, he's saying "People don't need protection from me, I need protection from them."

But then, why can't everyone else who thinks like him that they're not the problem get that same self exemption from presumed guilt? He's shown his true colors. He's an elitist bastard who thinks everyone else is the problem. So yeah, your quote pretty much nailed it.

No dude my whole argument was for it to be mandatory for all. not just me. If its mandatory for me then there are still going to be thousands killed each year and many thousands more injured. not every opposing view of your own comes down to the other person being elitist in their view.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Please answer my question.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

Why not? It's stopping you from from driving drunk and killing someone.

"Most people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov

He may or may not answer me. I don't blame him, I've been heckling pretty badly. (I hope he doesn't go Kramer on me)

Where I was going with that whole line of questioning was that it's going to come down to "But it's not me that's the problem. We need to stop other people from driving drunk, not me." That was the inevitable conclusion based on his answer of "It's worthless unless everyone does it." In reality, he's saying "People don't need protection from me, I need protection from them."

But then, why can't everyone else who thinks like him that they're not the problem get that same self exemption from presumed guilt? He's shown his true colors. He's an elitist bastard who thinks everyone else is the problem. So yeah, your quote pretty much nailed it.

No dude my whole argument was for it to be mandatory for all. not just me. If its mandatory for me then there are still going to be thousands killed each year and many thousands more injured. not every opposing view of your own comes down to the other person being elitist in their view.

You don't even understand logic, so I give up. You are hopeless.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No way would I be good with that crap being installed in my car. I'm not a criminal and will not be treated as one.

I'm sure you don't have a meth lab either but the pharmacy is still going to limit your sudafed purchases.

Yeah, because it's such an inconvenience that eh can't buy thousands of sudafed pills at one time. One might consider it to be inconvenient if they can't get home from dinner because they had one desert wine.

if one drink or 1000 drinks gives you more than the legal limit then you shouldn't be driving. end of story.

We finally agree on something.

But I still dont want that crap in cars.