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

[Numenorean]

of course it isnt :biggrin:

Of course.

If my judgement was somehow impaired then I would be driving drunk and making other bad choices. But I don't.

 

[Paladin3]

Those who sacrifice their common sense for arbitrary technology deserve neither...something like that.

 

[ioni]

Then why isn't mine?

Because it only impairs the judgement of some.

 

[BoomerD]

I don't XYZ why should I deal with something aimed at ABC. This applies to just about every law and regulation under the sun.

Good point. I don't have kids in school. Why should I have to pay school taxes?

Hell, if stopping DUI's is the end goal, close the bars, taverns, and cocktail lounges.

Make DUI a felony for the first offense. Add the death penalty for subsequent offenses...or any that involve injury or death to anyone except the driver.

I can come up with a myriad of draconian punishments for DUI offenses...but realistically, none would ever be implemented.
I'm all in favor of these devices for anyone who gets convicted of DUI...but not until they're convicted.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Good point. I don't have kids in school. Why should I have to pay school taxes?

Hell, if stopping DUI's is the end goal, close the bars, taverns, and cocktail lounges.

Make DUI a felony for the first offense. Add the death penalty for subsequent offenses...or any that involve injury or death to anyone except the driver.

I can come up with a myriad of draconian punishments for DUI offenses...but realistically, none would ever be implemented.
I'm all in favor of these devices for anyone who gets convicted of DUI...but not until they're convicted.

If public safety is the real concern here you would need to include people that are driving tired, under the influence of medication, distracted drivers, etc...

 

[BoomerD]

If public safety is the real concern here you would need to include people that are driving tired, under the influence of medication, distracted drivers, etc...

True dat.
You'll notice that I don't actually support those ideas...well, maybe the felony for DUI. I'm very much anti-drunk driving...and think everyone who's caught should be locked up for a long time.
There is just no excuse for driving while under the influence.

Unfortunately, the current laws seem to be more about generating revenue than about stopping drunk drivers.

 

[ShawnD1]

But that isn't true.

Varies from person to person. Some people know they are impaired. The rest are just retards.

I've seen drunk people do incredibly stupid shit that they should know was not likely to work. I've also seen people who seem fully aware of how impaired they are and they always stay on the side of caution.

 

[BoomerD]

Varies from person to person. Some people know they are impaired. The rest are just retards.

I've seen drunk people do incredibly stupid shit that they should know was not likely to work. I've also seen people who seem fully aware of how impaired they are and they always stay on the side of caution.

 

[KeithP]

I think most of the arguments here miss the bigger issue. The fact of the matter is it is not the government's job to prevent all accidental deaths in this country, plain and simple.

Any argument made, that we need such measures in our cars to prevent drunk driving accidents, also has to support the ban of all alcohol sales because the ill affect that it has on health in general. Add to that cigarettes, fatty/high calorie foods or anything that is killing people in large numbers.

After all, all it takes is government to step in with some rules and everything is made safe.

-KeithP

 

[ShawnD1]

If public safety is the real concern here you would need to include people that are driving tired, under the influence of medication, distracted drivers, etc...

Many of those ARE illegal. In my city, police can and will impound your car if you fail a sobriety test or if they suspect you are impaired in some way. That "suspect" rule is to cover drugs that don't actually impair your body but still mess with your judgement (people high on amphetamine can pass a sobriety test easily, but their agitated state of mind makes them dangerous on the road). One of my friends was pulled over because he was fucked up on cold medication. They didn't charge him with anything or give him a fine, but he was thrown in the drunk tank until I could pick him up. His car was impounded and his license was suspended for 1 day.

It's also illegal to text while driving or talk on a hand held cellular phone while driving.

Thank god it's illegal to drive on cold medications. Everyone reading this thread, I want you to try this some day - take 2 benedryl allergy pills (total of 50mg diphenhydramine) and try driving. I'll be surprised if you don't crash while doing this.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Move to some commie European country.

I would expect this more in some commie country actually.

 

[ShawnD1]

I
Any argument made, that we need such measures in our cars to prevent drunk driving accidents, also has to support the ban of all alcohol sales because the ill affect that it has on health in general. Add to that cigarettes, fatty/high calorie foods or anything that is killing people in large numbers.

One could argue that it's rights vs privileges.

Drinking alcohol is a fundamental right. It's a food and it only affects the person drinking it. What kind of dickwad tells people what they can or cannot eat or drink? (lol san francisco).
My doctor told me repeatedly not to mix alcohol with my blood sugar medication, but nobody can actually stop me from doing that. It's my right to ignore good advice so I can be totally fucked after 2 beers.

Driving is not a right. It isn't just about you; it's about everyone. We don't let blind people drive because that puts the rest of us in danger. We don't let epileptic or narcoleptic people drive. We don't let drunk people drive. We even require registration and insurance before driving is legal. There's no limit on how far or insane the restrictions on driving can go because it's not a right.

So that's the difference between banning alcohol (infringing on your rights) vs requiring weird shit in your car (stepping on your privileges).

 

[actuarial]

Good point. I don't have kids in school. Why should I have to pay school taxes?

Hell, if stopping DUI's is the end goal, close the bars, taverns, and cocktail lounges.

That still wouldn't stop DUI (people could still drink at home and then drive), and isn't necessary.

We don't want people to have guns in courthouses or on planes, so they pass through a metal detector. We don't need to ban guns to ensure that. We don't want impaired people to drive cars, and we have a means of testing to see if they are.

I'm not saying the test is foolproof or anything, but considering the minority of the inconvenience to everyone who doesn't drive drunk (like the inconvenience of me passing through a metal detector), the more I consider it the more I favor making them mandatory. Driving on public roads is a privilege anyways, so having this requirement is no different than proving to a shop keeper that I'm 19 when I want to buy smokes.

 

[highland145]

I would expect this more in some commie country actually.

that's the point.

 

[actuarial]

Thank god it's illegal to drive on cold medications. Everyone reading this thread, I want you to try this some day - take 2 benedryl allergy pills (total of 50mg diphenhydramine) and try driving. I'll be surprised if you don't crash while doing this.

Maybe they shouldn't try that actually

Instead maybe just try to ride a bike.

 

[ShawnD1]

Maybe they shouldn't try that actually

Instead maybe just try to ride a bike.

Remember to wear a helmet. Benedryl doesn't affect your thinking abilities too much, but your whole body feels very heavy and slow.

Another thing to try while taking benedryl is have somebody call you. It's the weirdest feeling when a phone rings. There's like a tingling sensation in the back of my head, then a slight delay, then I realize I heard something, then I realize it's a phone. It's the slowest process ever.

 

[Jaepheth]

Replace "car" with "keyboard" and you'll have a law I'd support.

 

[MotF Bane]

Replace "car" with "keyboard" and you'll have a law I'd support.

No way. Too much lulz.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

My car has electrical problems. It's one thing if my air conditioning doesn't work or a couple lights on the front panel go out; that doesn't affect the car's ability to transport me from Point A to Point B, it just affects my comfort. But if the breathalyzer failed? My car wouldn't start. Now I have to pay hundreds of dollars to get a mechanic to come to my car and perform costly and time-consuming work to fix a device that I don't need (since I've never driven drunk). How on Earth is that a reasonable solution? Even if my seatbelt breaks, I can drive my car in to get it looked at; not so if the breathalyzer fails. Are you going to subsidize repairs on the technology for people who have never had a DUI in their life? What if I'm late for work and I get fired because of it? What sort of reimbursement do I get then? Can I sue the government for an unreasonably intrusive requirement?

This idea is terrible.

 

[Vic Vega]

I've had my blow and go installed for a few days now and I don't think it would be bad for all cars to have them. It takes an extra ten seconds before you take off but wouldn't that be worth saving thousands of lives a year? It would also do away with not knowing your bac like things are now.

It would get my vote for sure

Presumption of innocence. Not everyone is a felon.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

My car has electrical problems. It's one thing if my air conditioning doesn't work or a couple lights on the front panel go out; that doesn't affect the car's ability to transport me from Point A to Point B, it just affects my comfort. But if the breathalyzer failed? My car wouldn't start. Now I have to pay hundreds of dollars to get a mechanic to come to my car and perform costly and time-consuming work to fix a device that I don't need (since I've never driven drunk). How on Earth is that a reasonable solution? Even if my seatbelt breaks, I can drive my car in to get it looked at; not so if the breathalyzer fails. Are you going to subsidize repairs on the technology for people who have never had a DUI in their life? What if I'm late for work and I get fired because of it? What sort of reimbursement do I get then? Can I sue the government for an unreasonably intrusive requirement?

This idea is terrible.

before you start crying the sky is falling and making imaginary problems do you have an evidence this happens at all today?

 

[highland145]

before you start crying the sky is falling and making imaginary problems do you have an evidence this happens at all today?

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

I hear technology isn't 100% though.

 

[FDF12389]

.

I'm convinced that mandatory sobriety devices on all vehicles would all but erradicate drunk driving.

Again I ask you people arguing against this, exactly how many deaths would this technology have to prevent for you to consider the imposition worth it?

Is the government gonna re-engineer my moms remote start?
How about I just leave my car running in my driveway before I start drinking?
How about I just blow up a bunch of balloons and keep them in the back of my jeep and then go bar hopping?
What if I just ran my own switch to the starter?
Pay a bystander to blow for me?
Blow into the device through a filter? In fact, someone would probably make a killing selling such a filter on the internet.
How would you mount of of these to a cycle?
Who is going to pay to repair my car when this thing breaks?

This idea sucks dick for technical reasons, let alone personal freedom reasons. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea is trolling or really fucking ignorant.

I guess I'm different than the people in the thread, but if you find doing something that takes literally 2 extra seconds a PITA, you probably should be taking the bus or a subway instead of driving. Because driving a car is much more of a PITA than blowing in a tube for 1/2 a second. The tube would be a good idea for the 2nd group of people I spoke on. It's crazy how many Americans believe they're an exception to the drinking guidelines, they would be shocked when the car wouldn't start after 3 beers in an hour.

Yes it would, their body would not have absorbed enough alcohol in one hour, the car would start and then they would get drunk just sitting at the wheel.

 

[FDF12389]

before you start crying the sky is falling and making imaginary problems do you have an evidence this happens at all today?

Dude, push button starts and FOB starter systems break all the time, you think this would be different? Face it, it's a really fucking dumb idea.

 

[actuarial]

Presumption of innocence. Not everyone is a felon.

So why do they card people trying to buy booze? Why do you have to pass through a metal detector at the airport?