MADD campaingning to erradicate drunk driving entirely

[waggy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you have one of these devices in your car? If not, you're a hypocrite and a jackass. Lead by example.

There Steering wheels are not in production yet from what the article says.

so? the box you blow in has been around for a long time.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you have one of these devices in your car? If not, you're a hypocrite and a jackass. Lead by example.

There Steering wheels are not in production yet from what the article says.

so? the box you blow in has been around for a long time.

like you said it is not accurate, awkward and intrusive. The steering wheel would be a much better non intrusive solution. I think if we can have self parking cars in 2006 it wouldnt be unreasonable for all new cars by 2010 be equipped with non intrusive dui detection equipment installed that passes certain reliability and accuracy ratings.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you have one of these devices in your car? If not, you're a hypocrite and a jackass. Lead by example.

There Steering wheels are not in production yet from what the article says.

so? the box you blow in has been around for a long time.

like you said it is not accurate, awkward and intrusive. The steering wheel would be a much better non intrusive solution. I think if we can have self parking cars in 2006 it wouldnt be unreasonable for all new cars by 2010 be equipped with non intrusive dui detection equipment installed that passes certain reliability and accuracy ratings.

Are we going to have cars check if a driver is too tired or on some medication? They cause more accidents than drunk drivers.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

Is 12 year olds and drunk driving a big problem?

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

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you have one of these devices in your car? If not, you're a hypocrite and a jackass. Lead by example.

There Steering wheels are not in production yet from what the article says.

so? the box you blow in has been around for a long time.

like you said it is not accurate, awkward and intrusive. The steering wheel would be a much better non intrusive solution. I think if we can have self parking cars in 2006 it wouldnt be unreasonable for all new cars by 2010 be equipped with non intrusive dui detection equipment installed that passes certain reliability and accuracy ratings.

Are we going to have cars check if a driver is too tired or on some medication? They cause more accidents than drunk drivers.

That technology exists already to detect driving tired. What happens is if your eyes begin to show signs of a tired person a loud tone is played to alert you that you are falling asleep. I don't see why this shouldn't be mandatory in cars by 2010 either.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

You keep spouting numbers of the people that have had a drink, yet you still avoid any numbers of how many of those actually drove while over the limit.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

You really really scare me, slim.

 

[bleuless]

i think this is a good idea, but may not be necessary if everyone just be more responsible. its up to how we evolve as a society to combat dd, if people continue to dd then such device imlementation may be a reality. on the other hand, if ppl stop dd, then the device will never be implmented to the masses.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

Is 12 year olds and drunk driving a big problem?

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

We already have numerous task forces whose mission is to seek out and prosecute sex offenders on the internet. These task forces exist at both the state and federal level. I think they are doing a good job.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

You keep spouting numbers of the people that have had a drink, yet you still avoid any numbers of how many of those actually drove while over the limit.

I already stated that it would be impossible to get those statistics.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

Is 12 year olds and drunk driving a big problem?

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

We already have numerous task forces whose mission is to seek out and prosecute sex offenders on the internet. These task forces exist at both the state and federal level. I think they are doing a good job.

We also have task forces whose mission is to pull people over who are driving erratically and checking to see if they're drunk. They're called police.

I can't believe you're still unable to make the link between these two things. All I can figure is that you have something on your hard drive you don't want people to find out about.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
I already stated that it would be impossible to get those statistics.

So quit making an argument based on numbers that you made up in your head.

 

[Vic]

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

Compared to European standards, driver education in America is absolutely terrible. Most drivers don't even know the basic rules of the road. Actual driver skill is virtually non-existent (and even worse, is actively discouraged). Basically, drivers are taught (1) don't speed and (2) don't drink and drive. That's it. So they drive slow down the fast lane blocking traffic texting on their cell phones while running red lights and changing lanes without signalling.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mashed Potato

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

I second that. Let us revise this topic and bring it back down to one page. Blowing into a device that would PREVENT you from starting your car if your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, is a preventative measure. I wish we could erase all irrelevant arguments because scanning a hd for kiddie porn, getting caught speeding, copyright infringement scans, and most of the others mentioned are not preventative measures. That said, these devices are mainly put in cars of repeat offender drunk drivers, with their own money, and usually drive drunk by themselves. As far as ways of getting around it, what are the chances any sane person is going to blow in a strangers steering wheel? As for the MADD suggestion of putting it in every car, that is an implication of proving one's innocence which is not how our system works (already stated). Although MADD is a wonderful group, there is a poor outlook on that suggestion.

OK, you want preventative? Software that scans every incoming packet and if it senses something that might be kiddie porn or copyrighted material, it shuts down your computer and you have to have the police reenable it after they check your drive to make sure there was no offending material. That preventative enough for you?

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I'm not certain that 66% of the population 12 and over is a pedophile.

Is 12 year olds and drunk driving a big problem?

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

We already have numerous task forces whose mission is to seek out and prosecute sex offenders on the internet. These task forces exist at both the state and federal level. I think they are doing a good job.

We also have task forces whose mission is to pull people over who are driving erratically and checking to see if they're drunk. They're called police.

I can't believe you're still unable to make the link between these two things. All I can figure is that you have something on your hard drive you don't want people to find out about.

There is no privacy issue here if I can't start my car. I jsut cannot drive until I sober up. Nobody knows about it. There are no reports generated and sent off to the man. Where as every packet being scanned is an extreme invasion of privacy as is hard drive scanning. That information is becoming available to a third party. There isn't a third party finding out that you couldn't start your car. There steering wheel isn't reporting the conversations you have in your car or what color yoru shirt is or your social security # or your atm pin#

if you can't see the differene there isn't much i can do to help you.

Drunk drivers out number police at least 1000 to 1

 

[tyler811]

If you have one DUI or Drunk driving yes for the rest of your life /FTW

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Drunk drivers out number police at least 1000 to 1

Again with your made up numbers.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: L1FE
Maybe instead of installing these in cars we should look at countries that don't have high rates of drunk driving accidents and see what they've done to solve the problem. I know in England they have special services where someone goes and pick up their car for them. Or maybe we can look at the psychology of having a higher than average drinking age. It just seems like we often try to solve a problem without ever finding out the cause, especially when there are other countries out there that don't seem to have our problems.

Ahhh, finally a voice of reason. Let's see... should we make the minimum age the age where people are finally independent of their parents; thus, they have to learn to drink responsibly on their own? Or maybe we could make the legal age 12, allowing people to grow up with alcohol, enjoying it, without abusing it? Hmmmmm... which choice did the other countries without major DWI problems make?

 

[getbush]

So which MADD's board member's husband is the CEO of the interlock manufacturing company?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: getbush
So which MADD's board member's husband is the CEO of the interlock manufacturing company?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
I already stated that it would be impossible to get those statistics.

So quit making an argument based on numbers that you made up in your head.

66% of the american poplulation 12 and over has had at least one drink in the last year. I didnt make that up.

didnt make this up either

one researcher estimated that there are between 10 and 15 million alcohol addicts in the United States today


say this research is off by 50% and 5 million alcohol addicts exist in the US. lets conservatively say that 1/2 of those are drunk on any given day that would be 2.5 million drunk people per day. Again conservatively say that 20% of those drive......thats half a million alchol addicts driving per day who have probably had a significant amount to drink that day. I think that is extremely conservative number that doesnt reflect weekends or holidays,

 

[lokiju]

:thumbsdown:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: getbush
So which MADD's board member's husband is the CEO of the interlock manufacturing company?

actually i saw on tv I think it is a black man whose son was killed in a DD accident.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
There is no privacy issue here if I can't start my car. I jsut cannot drive until I sober up. Nobody knows about it. There are no reports generated and sent off to the man. Where as every packet being scanned is an extreme invasion of privacy as is hard drive scanning. That information is becoming available to a third party. There isn't a third party finding out that you couldn't start your car. There steering wheel isn't reporting the conversations you have in your car or what color yoru shirt is or your social security # or your atm pin#

if you can't see the differene there isn't much i can do to help you.

Drunk drivers out number police at least 1000 to 1

You're a hopeless buffoon.

And you never answered my question. Do you have one of these devices voluntarily installed in your vehicle? And if not, why?

 

[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?