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

[IceBergSLiM]

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.



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.

Please show how the societal costs of doing nothing is less than the costs of doing something.

Please show the statistics for current blow n go systems failing.

 

[FDF12389]

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

Make you a deal, if I scan and upload three towing receipts and invoices from my brothers dealership for intoxilock system failures, you donate $100 to SADD.

Do we have a deal? Or do you want to continue to play stupid?

 

[highland145]

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

I'm sure there are serious data collectors tracking a bunch of whining drunks that can't get their cars to start.

 

[highland145]

Make you a deal, if I scan and upload three towing receipts and invoices from my brothers dealership for intoxilock system failures, you donate $100 to SADD.

Do we have a deal? Or do you want to continue to play stupid?

 

[bvalpati]

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.



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.

We can argue over the implementation and how easy it may or may not be to defeat all day. I'm certain a system could be designed and installed that could only be defeated by the most determined people and require a lot of money and or risk to disable. That's not the point anyway, how many lives have to be saved to make it worth it? If it only prevents a half million drunken driving events per year would that be enough? Or are you so immoral and selfish that it doesn't matter to you how many lives are saved as long as you don't have to deal with the inconvenience in order to drive?

As to personal freedom it sounds like you're under some misguided opinion that you have a right to drive which is absolutely false. The gov already requires you to do things like wear a seat belt, pass a driving exam etc in order to have the privilege of driving, this is really not that much more.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Is the government gonna re-engineer my moms remote start?
I would hope not. The government can't engineer anything worth shit. But I bet the free market would be able to provide retrofits since there would be a huge market for it. This would be implemented over many years similar to when they stopped broadcasting tv in analog...


How about I just leave my car running in my driveway before I start drinking?sure go ahead I don't know what that proves

How about I just blow up a bunch of balloons and keep them in the back of my jeep and then go bar hopping?again go ahead. doesn't prove or disprove a thing.

..
What if I just ran my own switch to the starter?Go ahead dude. But you won't pass vehicle inspection

Pay a bystander to blow for me? Go ahead

Blow into the device through a filter? In fact, someone would probably make a killing selling such a filter on the internet.Great

How would you mount of of these to a cycle? How would I mount a yet to be invented motorcycle dui detection system? I'll leave that to the engineers inventing it.

Who is going to pay to repair my car when this thing breaks?who pays to repair your car when any safety feature brakes?

..

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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

Sounds like winter in Alaska. :awe:

Actually, what will really happen is some enterprising person will sit themselves outside the bar all day and start cars for drunks at $5 a shot.

 

[FDF12389]

Please show how the societal costs of doing nothing is less than the costs of doing something.

How about you show me a single place in the US that doesn't have a system in place for DUI prosecution, or get a dictionary and look up "nothing".

Please show the statistics for current blow n go systems failing.

See above bet.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Make you a deal, if I scan and upload three towing receipts and invoices from my brothers dealership for intoxilock system failures, you donate $100 to SADD.

Do we have a deal? Or do you want to continue to play stupid?

I would like to understand better what an intoxilock system does, its features, and what happens when their is a failure.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

How about you show me a single place in the US that doesn't have a system in place for DUI prosecution, or get a dictionary and look up "nothing".

DUI prosecution is only part of the societal costs. tax payer dollars pay for the resources to prosecute the 1 million DUI arrests per year. And who pays for the Jail time.....tax payers too. Who pays for the over time on the check points.....tax payers. The husband that goes to jail for DUI and the family goes on welfare.....who pays for that? Tax payers. The otherwise law abiding citizen that loses their license and subsequently their job and has to collect welfar and food stamps....yes you got it!! tax payer. But what is the price tag for the real crime scenes accidents, deaths, injuries, lifetimes of medical treatments. Its astronomical.

See above bet.

showing me reciepts doesn't prove anything about the failure rate. Just proves there are failures which is an assumption every system is hackable and has failure. why am I wasting my breath this has been beaten 1000 times in this thread. Rationale that something shouldn't be done because isn't 100% effective doesn't make any sense. Nothing humanity has ever accomplished would ever have gotten by that guideline. nothing.

..

 

[FDF12389]

Or are you so immoral and selfish that it doesn't matter to you how many lives are saved as long as you don't have to deal with the inconvenience in order to drive?

I think you're misunderstanding me, its not the hassle. I don't want to pay for a system that does not work, and this is a thing that will not work, it is way too easily bypassed.

We can argue over the implementation and how easy it may or may not be to defeat all day. I'm certain a system could be designed and installed that could only be defeated by the most determined people and require a lot of money and or risk to disable.

No offense, but you really don't know much about how a car works do you? I'm betting you also haven't administered many PAC tests or have much experience which drunken criminals.

Your intentions may be good but you're still wrong.

As to personal freedom it sounds like you're under some misguided opinion that you have a right to drive which is absolutely false. The gov already requires you to do things like wear a seat belt, pass a driving exam etc in order to have the privilege of driving, this is really not that much more.

It's too much already, and the systems already in place are terribly inefficient.

 

[FDF12389]

I would like to understand better what an intoxilock system does, its features, and what happens when their is a failure.

Maybe you should know a little about them before advocating a law that mandates they should be put on millions of cars? It's ok to waste millions of other peoples moneyon a stupid law, but before you shell out a hundred of yours for a good cause you gotta hit google right quick? Yea dude that makes total sense.

 

[gaidensensei]

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.

I still feel it's not a bad idea to have one of these devices at a bar/pub/what have you's. Surely it won't thwart everyone and those who continue to offend, but at least the lives it saves from some of the group of people who voluntarily take realize they are over the legal BAC. It can be worth the offsets.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Maybe you should know a little about them before advocating a law that mandates they should be put on millions of cars? It's ok to waste millions of other peoples moneyon a stupid law, but before you shell out a hundred of yours for a good cause you gotta hit google right quick? Yea dude that makes total sense.

showing me reciepts doesn't prove anything about the failure rate. Just proves there are failures which is an assumption every system is hackable and has failure. why am I wasting my breath this has been beaten 1000 times in this thread. Rationale that something shouldn't be done because isn't 100% effective doesn't make any sense. Nothing humanity has ever accomplished would ever have gotten by that guideline. nothing.

Also said before in this thread blow n go technology is primitive and ancient. New technology could be designed around systems that take readings through your skin.

 

[bvalpati]

I think you're misunderstanding me, its not the hassle. I don't want to pay for a system that does not work, and this is a thing that will not work, it is way too easily bypassed.




No offense, but you really don't know much about how a car works do you? I'm betting you also haven't administered many PAC tests or have much experience which drunken criminals.

Your intentions may be good but you're still wrong.



It's too much already, and the systems already in place are terrible inefficient.

I know exactly how a car works and none of this is rocket science. I am absolutely certain if enough people got behind it an acceptable system could be designed, built and installed at a price that people would have a very hard time denying is worth the lives that would be saved. It really sounds to me that you're not interested because it might inconvenience you or limit your freedom in some way which is ridiculous because your freedom in this case is completely imaginary. Try not let it bother you though as there are plenty of other people in this thread who feel the same.

 

[FDF12389]

I still feel it's not a bad idea to have one of these devices at a bar/pub/what have you's. Surely it won't thwart everyone and those who continue to offend, but at least the lives it saves from the group of people who voluntarily realize they are over the legal BAC, and it can be worth the offsets.

I agree, a group of deputies I know actually take a collection and buy disposable ones and give them to bars in the country that don't have a free ride program. It allows the bartenders to cut people off if they know they'll be driving home. Wanna another drink, gotta check you.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Hey guys.......tough shit....its coming whether you like it or not! 10 years!

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...ecks-cars-future-could-automatically-test-bac

department of transportation is already looking at as an option. Which means it will be an eventual mandate!

 

[FDF12389]

I know exactly how a car works and none of this is rocket science. I am absolutely certain if enough people got behind it an acceptable system could be designed, built and installed at a price that people would have a very hard time denying is worth the lives that would be saved. It really sounds to me that you're not interested because it might inconvenience you or limit your freedom in some way which is ridiculous because your freedom in this case is completely imaginary.

Oh really? So its biometric now, and it interfaces with every single ECU ever produced, and it stops cars with carburetors from pop starting? LOL

Try not let it bother you though as there are plenty of other people in this thread who feel the same.

I count one, and I'm pretty certain he's just trolling anyway.

 

[FDF12389]

Hey guys.......tough shit....its coming whether you like it or not! 10 years!

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...ecks-cars-future-could-automatically-test-bac

department of transportation is already looking at as an option. Which means it will be an eventual mandate!

It's never going to be mandated.

Both technologies are nascent, and government officials admit that neither technology would see a commercial rollout for another decade most likely. Even then, they wouldn’t be mandated. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood attended a demonstration Friday at which he said the tech is envisioned as an option, not a mandate.

 

[bvalpati]

Oh really? So its biometric now, and it interfaces with every single ECU ever produced, and it stops cars with carburetors from pop starting? LOL

It's pretty trivial to interfere with the electrical system in any car, new or old.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Read much?

department of transportation is already looking at as an option. Which means it will be an eventual mandate!

ONce it is proven, it will be a mandate as with any new safety feature.

IE airbags were optional. Now mandated. Same thing here.

 

[bvalpati]

Hey guys.......tough shit....its coming whether you like it or not! 10 years!

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...ecks-cars-future-could-automatically-test-bac

department of transportation is already looking at as an option. Which means it will be an eventual mandate!

This is great news because even if it isn't mandated at first it will be once the tech is proven effective, it would be absolutely immoral to not use it that point.

 

[bvalpati]

Oh really? So its biometric now, and it interfaces with every single ECU ever produced, and it stops cars with carburetors from pop starting? LOL



I count one, and I'm pretty certain he's just trolling anyway.

I was referring to the way you feel, not me. Apparently I'm in the minority in this argument.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is great news because even if it isn't mandated at first it will be once the tech is proven effective, it would be absolutely immoral to not use it that point.

Yep and it could be a great weapon for prosecutors too. What jury wouldn't nail a guy to the wall that opted out of this technology only to be caught DUI down the road.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I count one, and I'm pretty certain he's just trolling anyway.

I'm not trolling, I've offered up what see as the 3 courses of action here and admittedly none of them are flawless:

Assumptions:

-If there is no accident there is no victim. Existing motor vehicle infractions for why you were pulled over should apply(speeding, swerving, if applicable reckless endangerment etc.) along with mandatory towing.

- If there is an accident we have existing assault w/ deadly weapon laws to cover it

- If there is a fatality we have existing manslaughter laws to cover it.

- Curent DUI laws are redundant and condone the activity.

THree options:

1) repeal all DUI laws and prosecute according to the above

2) repeal all DUI laws and enforce a single strict zero tolerance law

3) Mandate the saftey feature (blow n go or whatever the latest tech is)