Why not make it impossible to operate a car while intoxicated?

[IceBergSLiM]

troll, troll your boat.

yes I'm trolling, who started with the bleeding heart liberal and commie comments ?

 

[dpodblood]

You can't predict whether or not you will be in an accident. Tires can blow out, other cars can hit you, all sorts of things.

But I can say with 100% certainty that I will never drink and drive.

This.

I don't want the cost or inconvenience of having to blow into a breathalyzer in order to drive my car. I don't drive drunk and I never will. You may say it will save lives, but at what cost? By making breathalyzers mandatory you are effectively being assumed to be a criminal.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Maybe next time he'll wrap his car around you, or your child/parent/best friend etc.

I just don't understand the outrage at such a minor imposition when it will save so many lives. I'm sure your viewpoint on this would be completely different if you had lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to punishing a major majority of people who don't drink and drive just because of a select few who are retarded enough to do so. And I don't wish to live in a country that does, good thing this is the US.

 

[highland145]

yes I'm trolling, who started with the bleeding heart liberal and commie comments ?

Me on the first and you got my point.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You can receive benefit from a system where everyone participates, even if you are not the one causing the problem. You'll still have a reduced chance of being smoked by a drunk driver, something you have very little control over.

Having me go through a metal detector is completely pointless, because I never carry a gun.

Well the difference one is actual security and the other is security theater.

 

[ShawnD1]

Then someone will complain about unnecessary costs; they would have a point.

New rule: they must be an option on all new cars. Sort of like most modern cars have optional security packages from the factory. You would get the blower for lower insurance rates

My car has lower theft insurance because it came from the factory with some kind of security stuff. A blower might cause a significant insurance drop because such a ridiculously high percentage of fatal crashes involve alcohol.

Of course you could always bypass the system by having your sober friend blow into it so the car starts then he goes back into the house and you drive home drunk as hell.

 

[bvalpati]

Sorry, I don't subscribe to punishing a major majority of people who don't drink and drive just because of a select few who are retarded enough to do so. And I don't wish to live in a country that does, good thing this is the US.

Blow and go is hardly a punishment, it takes the same amount of time it takes you to put on your seat belt. Again I restate, you have to be a complete douche to be selfish enough to consider such a minor annoyance not worth thousands of people lives per year.

 

[Numenorean]

Do you really think a person who is completely fucked up is even going to be able to consider the consequences of their actions? A guy who blows a .4 after driving through a crowd of people on a corner in most cases wouldn't even be able to understand where he is let alone that what he had just done will cost him his life. Making it impossible for a drunk person to operate a vehicle solves that problem, none of your suggestions can do that.

Show me any shred of evidence that proves capital punishment in any way reduces homicide and you might have a sliver of an argument but since I already know you can't I'm going to assume you don't have any idea what you're talking about regarding the deterrent effect of laws.

There isn't enough evidence because our laws do not provide for harsh enough punishments.

Would you get completely fucked up if you knew the consequences? Why would you get that drunk in the first place?

 

[Numenorean]

ding ding ding. I think you might get it now. You can't predict when a drunk driver will nail you, why wouldn't you want the peace of mind that its unlikely to happen due to safety features.

I don't have need for those annoyances in my vehicles though. If other people feel the need to have them, that's fine.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Blow and go is hardly a punishment, it takes the same amount of time it takes you to put on your seat belt. Again I restate, you have to be a complete douche to be selfish enough to consider such a minor annoyance not worth thousands of people lives per year.

You also realize that the cost is going to be passed down to us as well? Don't be so naive to think you just have to blow into the thing and that's it. Stuff costs money, car companies don't run charities for their customers. Also, guess what, drunk drivers will still be driving drunk because they'll have sober people blowing into it for them.

Idiotic idea is idiotic.

 

[Numenorean]

Blow and go is hardly a punishment, it takes the same amount of time it takes you to put on your seat belt. Again I restate, you have to be a complete douche to be selfish enough to consider such a minor annoyance not worth thousands of people lives per year.

So because I don't drink and drive and I don't put others at risk, I'M the one who is selfish?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

New rule: they must be an option on all new cars. Sort of like most modern cars have optional security packages from the factory. You would get the blower for lower insurance rates

My car has lower theft insurance because it came from the factory with some kind of security stuff. A blower might cause a significant insurance drop because such a ridiculously high percentage of fatal crashes involve alcohol.

Of course you could always bypass the system by having your sober friend blow into it so the car starts then he goes back into the house and you drive home drunk as hell.

This would be a good way to ease into it. Most people would take the option. You could sweeten the deal with a one time fed rebate/tax decution like they have with green car purchases.

 

[bvalpati]

There isn't enough evidence because our laws do not provide for harsh enough punishments.

Would you get completely fucked up if you knew the consequences? Why would you get that drunk in the first place?

So the death penalty isn't harsh enough?

Why does anybody get that fucked up? I can't answer that but I can tell you with absolute certainty MILLIONS of people will get that fucked up tonight, and enough of them will drive home in that state to warrant this minor annoyance in our cars.

 

[highland145]

My car has lower theft insurance because it came from the factory with some kind of security stuff. A blower might cause a significant insurance drop because such a ridiculously high percentage of fatal crashes involve alcohol.

Some #s:

60% of all fatalities alcohol related in 1982.
37% in 2008. 13800.


http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I don't have need for those annoyances in my vehicles though. If other people feel the need to have them, that's fine.

I dont need for seatbelts, airbags, abc, xyz, etc etc etc. go around in this circle jerk all day. If we start getting into other areas of "governmental" interference.....my lord, this is really nothing in comparison.

 

[bvalpati]

So because I don't drink and drive and I don't put others at risk, I'M the one who is selfish?

No, you're the one who is selfish because you would deny others a means to help avoid their own death or the death of loved ones simply because you don't want to tolerate a 10 second annoyance every time you start your vehicle.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Some #s:

60% of all fatalities alcohol related in 1982.
37% in 2008. 13800.


http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

cars had very few safety features available today. Nobody is going to argue 1982 cars are safer. Where is the control group data to account for this?

 

[highland145]

This would be a good way to ease into it. Most people would take the option. You could sweeten the deal with a one time fed rebate/tax decution like they have with green car purchases.

Now you want my tax dollars to pay for it. Nope. If it's mandated, let the new car buyer pay for it.

 

[Electric Amish]

Can these blower's be fooled? Can you just blow with some canned air or a bellows or something? Are they smart enough to know it is a person versus just an air source?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No, you're the one who is selfish because you would deny others a means to help avoid their own death or the death of loved ones simply because you don't want to tolerate a 10 second annoyance every time you start your vehicle.

again, I'll re-iterate the blow n go technology is ancient. Their are much less invasive ways to do this today. .

Translation: it wouldn't even be 10 seconds inconvenience.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Now you want my tax dollars to pay for it. Nope. If it's mandated, let the new car buyer pay for it.

Your tax dollars are paying for all the mutilated people to be scraped off highways, taken away in helicopters, and the life long medical bills. fail.

 

[Numenorean]

So the death penalty isn't harsh enough?

Why does anybody get that fucked up? I can't answer that but I can tell you with absolute certainty MILLIONS of people will get that fucked up tonight, and enough of them will drive home in that state to warrant this minor annoyance in our cars.

The death penalty is certainly harsh enough, but not applied enough. Other laws are far too lenient in my opinion. Jail is too easy. Fuck this sitting in cells and having TV bullshit. Put them to work out in the middle of Bumfuck, Arizona or somewhere similar. Let them work until they bleed. If they refuse, put them in a hot box. Make prison a really shitty place to be, not the bullshit it is today.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Can these blower's be fooled? Can you just blow with some canned air or a bellows or something? Are they smart enough to know it is a person versus just an air source?

any technology is hackable.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I said that at any point if your DUI causes the death of someone else then you would be executed, regardless if it's the first or not.

We could change that to any point if you cause the injury of another then you are executed.

Personally I'd say 1 DUI, whether you injure anyone else or not and you should be executed, but I doubt anyone else in this country would agree.

Most people wouldn't agree because more often than not its a victim-less crime.

It would be more sensible to prosecute under existing laws...if you drink and drive and hurt someone you are prosecuted under assault w/ deadly weapon charges. If you kill someone manslaughter. If nobody gets hurt you get whatever traffic violation you were stopped for and and your car towed.

 

[Numenorean]

No, you're the one who is selfish because you would deny others a means to help avoid their own death or the death of loved ones simply because you don't want to tolerate a 10 second annoyance every time you start your vehicle.

I'm not denying others a means to do this. I've already said that if they want to have one of these, that's fine and I have no problem with it. I don't want any in my vehicles though.