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

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

Then your vehicle isn't allowed on public roads.

 

[Numenorean]

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.

Why the need for double posting?

 

[Numenorean]

Then your vehicle isn't allowed on public roads.

Yes it is. I'm not a piece of shit who would drink and drive.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Why the need for double posting?

you either missed or conveniently ignored it.

 

[Numenorean]

you either missed or conveniently ignored it.

You didn't say anything worth responding to, so I didn't.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Yes it is. I'm not a piece of shit who would drink and drive.

you can still be killed by one. see how this can go around in circles all day?

 

[highland145]

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.

Cool. I'm paying half the tax I was in 1982 giving the #s. Win.

 

[ShawnD1]

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.

It would strongly depend on cost of the device (did OP mention how much that cost?) and the age and sex of the person using this car

Some quick numbers here. When I first got insured on my very first car, the minimum legal insurance was $1,800 per year because I was a single male under 25 years. A while later I got me a new Honda Civic LX which costs about $20,000 in Canada. I had a loan on it which also meant it had a lein on it and required maximum insurance. Even with a perfect driving record, at the age of ~22, insurance was about $4,000 per year.
If a blower in that new car dropped the insurance by just $500 per year, it would pay for itself very quickly.

Older people already have low insurance rates, so it wouldn't be worth it for them to have it. Then again old people don't drink and drive as often, IMO.

 

[Numenorean]

you can still be killed by one. see how this can go around in circles all day?

True, but I didn't say that nobody should have these blow things, I just don't want one in my vehicles.

 

[bvalpati]

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.

It sounds simple enough to think that harsh laws might have some deterrent effect but statistically they don't, that's been shown over and over. They are particularly ineffective in cases where a person commits a crime while under the influence of an intoxicant. Think about the last time you were so hammered you could barely walk and ask yourself if you would have been capable of considering the consequences of your actions. If you have never been that fucked up then you really have no frame of reference to discuss it. If you have been that fucked up and can honestly answer that you would be fully able to understand why driving is bad in that state then grats to you, you're one of only a very small handful of people who can think rationally while intoxicated. For the rest of humanity the best way to PREVENT drunk driving accidents is to make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Cool. I'm paying half the tax I was in 1982 giving the #s. Win.

also paying for more expensive cars. try again.

oh and more expensive health care. try again.

 

[Numenorean]

It sounds simple enough to think that harsh laws might have some deterrent effect but statistically they don't, that's been shown over and over. They are particularly ineffective in cases where a person commits a crime while under the influence of an intoxicant. Think about the last time you were so hammered you could barely walk and ask yourself if you would have been capable of considering the consequences of your actions. If you have never been that fucked up then you really have no frame of reference to discuss it. If you have been that fucked up and can honestly answer that you would be fully able to understand why driving is bad in that state then grats to you, you're one of only a very small handful of people who can think rationally while intoxicated. For the rest of humanity the best way to PREVENT drunk driving accidents is to make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles.

I have never allowed myself to become so intoxicated that I was no longer able to make rational decisions. I don't understand why anyone would allow that to happen.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

True, but I didn't say that nobody should have these blow things, I just don't want one in my vehicles.

Are you just as outraged by every other intrusion into your life or just this one? /

 

[DrunkenSano]

It sounds simple enough to think that harsh laws might have some deterrent effect but statistically they don't, that's been shown over and over. They are particularly ineffective in cases where a person commits a crime while under the influence of an intoxicant. Think about the last time you were so hammered you could barely walk and ask yourself if you would have been capable of considering the consequences of your actions. If you have never been that fucked up then you really have no frame of reference to discuss it. If you have been that fucked up and can honestly answer that you would be fully able to understand why driving is bad in that state then grats to you, you're one of only a very small handful of people who can think rationally while intoxicated. For the rest of humanity the best way to PREVENT drunk driving accidents is to make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles.

The device does not make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles. There have already been numerous cases where drunk people still drove even with the device lawfully installed.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I have never allowed myself to become so intoxicated that I was no longer able to make rational decisions. I don't understand why anyone would allow that to happen.

well thats pretty basic. Anyone will tell you after a single drink your judgement is impacted.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The device does not make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles. There have already been numerous cases where drunk people still drove even with the device lawfully installed.

No security measure is 100% short of shutting down whatever activity you are securing.

 

[bvalpati]

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.

Now you're just being ridiculous, obviously it won't work unless it's mandatory on all vehicles. You're either trolling or truly can't understand this simple moral position, in either case I'm done trying to help you understand.

 

[Electric Amish]

any technology is hackable.

If it is that easily hackable, then it is worthless... not that I agree to it in any way.

I despise the fact that the government forces me to wear a seatbelt. Not that I wouldn't normally, but creating a law to enforce it is stupid.

 

[Numenorean]

well thats pretty basic. Anyone will tell you after a single drink your judgement is impacted.

My judgement isn't impacted after a single drink.

 

[highland145]

also paying for more expensive cars. try again.

oh and more expensive health care. try again.

Not if I don't have to add some ridiculous piece of mandated hardware because Rude suggested it in OT.

My health care is going to be free or so I heard.

And I will get free rent/electric.

I am having a winning today. Think I'll have a beer or 6.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Truth be told I would support either a mandatory device or a strict zero tolerance policy on DUI.

However in the real world, a zero tolerance DUI policy would pretty much destroy the economy over night.

Where as mandatory safety features could actually be a benefit to society economically.

 

[sactoking]

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?

It doesn't need control group data, it's a percentage of all auto fatalities. Cars ARE safer than in 1982 as is evidence by the almost 7000 fewer fatalities in 2008 compared to 1982. What you're missing is that from 1982 to 2008 alcohol-related fatalities were cut almost in half. The rate of alcohol-related fatalities dropped faster than the rate of all auto fatalities. Vehicle safety is already accounted for.

Voluntary breathalyzers wouldn't work. Most DUI/DWI offenders, especially repeat offenders, don't believe they have a problem. They won't voluntarily purchase one, so you get adverse selection.

The only way to stay safe on the roads is to stay off them. You can legislate and regulate to your heart's content and you will never make them 100% safe. There is an assumption of risk when you get in an automobile and it's an assumption you voluntarily make. DUI/DWI is already illegal and enforced but you assume the risk that someone might not be caught just like you assume the risk that someone might apply makeup, eat a hamburger, talk on the phone, speed, not stop at a light or sign, cut you off, brake suddenly, blow a tire, not see you in a blind spot, or any other of the myriad risks that face you when you drive or ride in a vehicle.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

My judgement isn't impacted after a single drink.

why not?

 

[BoomerD]

I don't drink. Why should I have to deal with something that is aimed solely at drunks?

 

[bvalpati]

The device does not make it impossible for drunk people to operate vehicles. There have already been numerous cases where drunk people still drove even with the device lawfully installed.

True but it does present a major obstacle that would undoubtedly prevent the vast majority of people from driving drunk. While there is a small percentage of people who would be willing to break the law by circumventing the technology, past evidence shows that the vast majority would not.

Let me ask you this, how many deaths would this technology need to prevent for you to consider the inconvenience of being required to use it worth it?