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

[SP33Demon]

It's a punishment, not the norm.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

What's imaginary? My car actually has electrical problems, and it has caused certain devices in the car to fail, from the relatively benign (air conditioning) to the more serious (ABS or traction control). The breathalyzer would obviously need to be connected to the main power of the vehicle to work; what's to stop an electrical issue from causing it to stop working? And since the device would be directly tied to the ignition, if it were to stop working, the car would become inoperable. Why should I be expected to pay money to maintain such a device when it doesn't affect me?

Anyway, this is just academic, as you'll see men living on Mars before you ever see mandatory breathalyzers in cars in America.

 

[AMDZen]

You have got to be one of the most consistently ignorant people on this forum.

"Why not make our impossible"?

Why not make your impossible? You fucking 'tard!

 

[SphinxnihpS]

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

Just because you can't control yourself doesn't mean the state needs to control everyone. How about I don't want to pay for this idiocy? Fuck the children!

 

[Codewiz]

You don't have to be an alcoholic to drive drunk.

There is no method to make anything unhackable, so why bother with any safety feature right?

Are you this dense?

Read my first post. I already said that this would prevent the accidental drunk drivers. Did you get that sentence? Do you understand that?

Yes, then lets continue. I then said that the people it wouldn't take off the road are the drunks aka alcoholics. The already know they are breaking the law and would just disable to the breathalyzer.

So since you are asking for other solutions to the people who don't like your idea, I ask how do you prevent those people?

My point is simple, you will still have a huge number of people driving drunk even if they implemented your suggestion.

 

[BoomerD]

Just because you can't control yourself doesn't mean the state needs to control everyone. How about I don't want to pay for this idiocy? Fuck the children!

 

[FDF12389]

Read my first post. I already said that this would prevent the accidental drunk drivers.

It wouldn't even do that. America as a whole is not smart enough to know the rate of which Alcohol is absorbed and metabolized. So you'll have people starting their car and then 15 minutes later be over the legal limit. Accidentally.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

It wouldn't even do that. America as a whole is not smart enough to know the rate of which Alcohol is absorbed and metabolized. So you'll have people starting their car and then 15 minutes later be over the legal limit. Accidentally.

No. This is what would happen, you'd go to the bar, and all the parked cars would be running.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I am NOT sitting next to SMOGZINN!

 

[FDF12389]

No. This is what would happen, you'd go to the bar, and all the parked cars would be running.

I addressed that in an earlier post, along with many other ways these would be easily bypassed. None of the trolls have responded yet.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Are you this dense?

Read my first post. I already said that this would prevent the accidental drunk drivers. Did you get that sentence? Do you understand that?

Yes, then lets continue. I then said that the people it wouldn't take off the road are the drunks aka alcoholics. The already know they are breaking the law and would just disable to the breathalyzer.

So since you are asking for other solutions to the people who don't like your idea, I ask how do you prevent those people?

My point is simple, you will still have a huge number of people driving drunk even if they implemented your suggestion.

the implication of this statement is that anyone who breaks any law will break all laws.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No. This is what would happen, you'd go to the bar, and all the parked cars would be running.

until a real criminal pulls up in a car carrier and woooooooooohooooooo jack pot. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Schfifty Five]

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

English much?

 

[FDF12389]

the implication of this statement is that anyone who breaks any law will break all laws.

I'm glad you're back.

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?

 

[bvalpati]

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.



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.

First of all it's already been acknowledged that there would be some people willing to risk jail time to disable or otherwise circumvent the sobriety systems but I really doubt the number would be very high. Grey area for certain but I'm sure we can agree that some percentage of people (probably a large majority) would not disable the system and thus the devices would likely prevent many deaths due to drunk driving. Again, how many deaths would it have to prevent for you to consider it something worth putting up with? Why won't any people arguing against mandatory sobriety devices answer this question?

Also, WTF are you talking about personal freedom for dumbass? Since when do you have the freedom to drive drunk and risk other people's lives? This isn't about you anyway, I don't fucking care if you wrap yourself around a telephone pole, I only care about the people who didn't decide to drive drunk being killed by people who did. Since a lot of people are obviously incapable of either taking responsibility and not driving drunk or are unable to determine when they have had too much to drive I think it's completely reasonable to use technology like this to increase safety for everyone.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I addressed that in an earlier post, along with many other ways these would be easily bypassed. None of the trolls have responded yet.

you didn't contribute anything new that hasn't been responded to maybe?

 

[FDF12389]

until a real criminal pulls up in a car carrier and woooooooooohooooooo jack pot. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

DUI offenders are not real criminals????

 

[IceBergSLiM]

DUI offenders are not real criminals????

According to current legislation yes. Current legislation condones some drinking and driving.

Also its hard to argue that it isn't victim-less unless there is an accident.

 

[epidemis]

How is that a solution. Someone has already died in a manslaughter case = problem not prevented.

Same can be said about firearms. Take 'em away.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

and the people complaining about the cost, with the economies of scale the price would be neglible.

spread over the life of the car, the true cost is infinitesimal in comparison to the cost associated with leaving things as is. The societal costs of maintaining status quo is 100s of times greater.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Same can be said about firearms. Take 'em away.

I don't follow...take guns away from who? How would you do that?

 

[BoomerD]

Same can be said about firearms. Take 'em away.

Owning guns is a constitutional right...driving a car is not.

 

[FDF12389]

First of all it's already been acknowledged that there would be some people willing to risk jail time to disable or otherwise circumvent the sobriety systems but I really doubt the number would be very high. Grey area for certain but I'm sure we can agree that some percentage of people (probably a large majority) would not disable the system and thus the devices would likely prevent many deaths due to drunk driving. Again, how many deaths would it have to prevent for you to consider it something worth putting up with? Why won't any people arguing against mandatory sobriety devices answer this question?

Some people? It would be a shitload. People wouldn't risk jail time? They already do. Are you really this dumb? The same people who drive drunk now could buy a twenty pack of balloons and drive drunk for a week, and that's exactly what they would do.

Also, WTF are you talking about personal freedom for dumbass? Since when do you have the freedom to drive drunk and risk other people's lives? This isn't about you anyway, I don't fucking care if you wrap yourself around a telephone pole, I only care about the people who didn't decide to drive drunk being killed by people who did. Since a lot of people are obviously incapable of either taking responsibility and not driving drunk or are unable to determine when they have had too much to drive I think it's completely reasonable to use technology like this to increase safety for everyone.

Because its my fucking car and I don't want to pay to put a device that not only inconveniences me, but also makes my car more prone to failure. I don't drive drunk, so yes there is a personal freedom issue in forcing me to put these on my cars. Can you seriously not determine that context from what I wrote? If I was speaking in the context you thought, then I would be against DUI laws; I am not, I think they should be much harsher.

But that does not mean I want to waste a shitload of tax dollars on a system that can be bypassed with balloons.

Go back to school, you didn't learn enough.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

so is that a no? You don't have any evidence that current blow n go systems cause havoc on their owners?

 

[FDF12389]

you didn't contribute anything new that hasn't been responded to maybe?

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?