MADD campaingning to erradicate drunk driving entirely

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: 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?

I did answer your question up above.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: 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,

Which still does not tell us how many people that actually drive over the legal limit.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Ah, I see it now. So the only thing keeping you from having one is reliability? Seems like a might poor excuse for being a menace to society. I insist you put a breathalyzer on your death machine this moment.

 

[sswingle]

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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: 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,

Which still does not tell us how many people that actually drive over the legal limit.

my common sense tells me that an alcohol addict drinks until drunk. why are you playing stupid right now? 3 drinks in an hour is legally over the limit. Are you arguing that the majority of people leaving the bar/club at the end of the night havent had the equivalent of 3 drinks in an hour?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Ah, I see it now. So the only thing keeping you from having one is reliability? Seems like a might poor excuse for being a menace to society. I insist you put a breathalyzer on your death machine this moment.

cost is also a factor at hte moment. it is also quite intrusive to blow into it. Where as in order to drive my hands have to be on the steering wheel anyways= not intrusive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

driving is not a right its a privilege........ next.........

No, driving without being arbitarily searched is a freedom. Many freedoms are not codified "rights." But they are no less a freedom.

Right now, I am free to drive my car without the government checking me for alcohol each and every time I drive and forcing me to pay for a device that does so..

I am not surprised you cannot understand the difference.

What was that about "next?"

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

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

just like any technology when it is in the early stages of adoption its is somewhat buggy, bulky and awkward to use. Then as it matures and is adopted by the larger population it becomes refined, smaller in size, more features and more reliable. You can place this model against any technology. So compare the cell phone devices used today to the zach morris cell phones that were out 15 years ago. They were limited in use. They were unreliable, awkward to use. Then as time went by everybody now has cell phones that are reliable nearly everywhere and have 1000x the features. See where I'm going with this?

That soon the government will require me to have a cell phone?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
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

Maybe not, but it bears very little relevance to your argument.

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,

And I think that your argument is flawed and more or less completely baseless. To suggest that all cars should be fitted with anti-drunk-driving measures based on haphazard guesswork is foolish at best, and downright idiotic at worst.

Let's try this...
There are 400,000 lemurs in this country. Conservatively, 10% of them have access to cars. That's 40,000 lemurs on any given day that could get behind the wheel without adequate training and become possible killers! Therefore, we should install anti-lemur locks on all cars to prevent lemurs from driving and causing accidents.

 

[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?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah, I see it now. So the only thing keeping you from having one is reliability? Seems like a might poor excuse for being a menace to society. I insist you put a breathalyzer on your death machine this moment.

cost is also a factor at hte moment. it is also quite intrusive to blow into it. Where as in order to drive my hands have to be on the steering wheel anyways= not intrusive.

So you've put an arbitrary value on human life? What's the matter, saving lives isn't important enough for you to spend some extra money? And how is it intrusive to blow into a device when starting your car? Blow into it once, you're done. Can't you be bothered to take an extra couple seconds if it means saving someone's life?

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: 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,

Which still does not tell us how many people that actually drive over the legal limit.

my common sense tells me that an alcohol addict drinks until drunk. why are you playing stupid right now? 3 drinks in an hour is legally over the limit. Are you arguing that the majority of people leaving the bar/club at the end of the night havent had the equivalent of 3 drinks in an hour?

Most addicts are going to drink at home for the most part too.
And whats this 3 drinks in an hour thing? There are a lot of factors that determine how fast someone gets to the legal limit.
You are also implying that no one has a DD or other form of transportation.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

driving is not a right its a privilege........ next.........

No, driving without being arbitarily searched is a freedom. Many freedoms are not codified "rights." But they are no less a freedom.

Right now, I am free to drive my car without the government checking me for alcohol each and every time I drive and forcing me to pay for a device that does so..

I am not surprised you cannot understand the difference.

What was that about "next?"

you earned this right by passing a driving test and agreeing to obey the laws of the road. If they want to require in addition to, that, you have to have this device in your car .....they can and will do that.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

driving is not a right its a privilege........ next.........

No, driving without being arbitarily searched is a freedom. Many freedoms are not codified "rights." But they are no less a freedom.

Right now, I am free to drive my car without the government checking me for alcohol each and every time I drive and forcing me to pay for a device that does so..

I am not surprised you cannot understand the difference.

What was that about "next?"

There's no arguing with this guy Amused. He's convinced he's right. See my sig for the rest.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah, I see it now. So the only thing keeping you from having one is reliability? Seems like a might poor excuse for being a menace to society. I insist you put a breathalyzer on your death machine this moment.

cost is also a factor at hte moment. it is also quite intrusive to blow into it. Where as in order to drive my hands have to be on the steering wheel anyways= not intrusive.

So you've put an arbitrary value on human life? What's the matter, saving lives isn't important enough for you to spend some extra money? And how is it intrusive to blow into a device when starting your car? Blow into it once, you're done. Can't you be bothered to take an extra couple seconds if it means saving someone's life?

having it my car doesn't really help any if the next guy doesn't have it in his does it?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah, I see it now. So the only thing keeping you from having one is reliability? Seems like a might poor excuse for being a menace to society. I insist you put a breathalyzer on your death machine this moment.

cost is also a factor at hte moment. it is also quite intrusive to blow into it. Where as in order to drive my hands have to be on the steering wheel anyways= not intrusive.

So you've put an arbitrary value on human life? What's the matter, saving lives isn't important enough for you to spend some extra money? And how is it intrusive to blow into a device when starting your car? Blow into it once, you're done. Can't you be bothered to take an extra couple seconds if it means saving someone's life?

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.

 

[sswingle]

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

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

driving is not a right its a privilege........ next.........

No, driving without being arbitarily searched is a freedom. Many freedoms are not codified "rights." But they are no less a freedom.

Right now, I am free to drive my car without the government checking me for alcohol each and every time I drive and forcing me to pay for a device that does so..

I am not surprised you cannot understand the difference.

What was that about "next?"

you earned this right by passing a driving test and agreeing to obey the laws of the road. If they want to require in addition to, that, you have to have this device in your car .....they can and will do that.

After reading this thread it is readily apparent that you have no concept of the slippery slope, and border on authoritarianism as a means to cure societies ills.

Buddy, it's been tried. Authoritarianism (better known as fascism) NEVER cured a single social ill... and it never will.

You cannot micro manage individual lives just because they "might" commit a crime. To do so would throw out all freedoms and rights.

*I* am responsible for me and my actions. Not you, not the government, and not the busybody nanny-staters you agree with.

 

[Acanthus]

Increase the penalties enough for people to ruin their lives for doing it, and then youre introducing "survival of the fittest" into the scheme

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

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: 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,

Which still does not tell us how many people that actually drive over the legal limit.

my common sense tells me that an alcohol addict drinks until drunk. why are you playing stupid right now? 3 drinks in an hour is legally over the limit. Are you arguing that the majority of people leaving the bar/club at the end of the night havent had the equivalent of 3 drinks in an hour?

Most addicts are going to drink at home for the most part too.
And whats this 3 drinks in an hour thing? There are a lot of factors that determine how fast someone gets to the legal limit.
You are also implying that no one has a DD or other form of transportation.

I agree 3 drinks an hour is the average. Some people its 4 some people it is 2 and the determinant is basicall your weight. Whether or not you feel effects after 3 or 12 is something else entirely. But BAC isn't reliant upon how drunk you feel and how drunk you feel isnt reliant upon your BAC. But legally BAC is the measure. and .08 is approx 3 drinks in an hour.

I wasn't implying DD or other transportation. Clearly in NYC there are less drunks driving than in rural suburan areas due to more mass transport available.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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

yeah its called every friday and saturday in america.

 

[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?

 

[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.