If you could virtually eliminate drunk driving, would you do it?

[Fat Elvis]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

[Rooster]

I might if they also added a sleep deprivation test, age test, prescription drug test, illegal drug test, anger assessment test, cell phone in the off position test, no eating while driving test, no make up application test, and NFL team loyalty test before you could start a car.

[shirtsleeve]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

You make some great points. My question is how does this differ from Alnorth's comparison of security at an airport. Can Airport security not be inaccurate? Can missing a flight not result in just as dire consequences as being kept from driving your car?

Doing zero fact checking, I am fairly sure that the number of drunk driving related deaths in the US greatly outweigh the number of airplane terrorist related deaths in the US. Is it the frequency with which we will be inconvenienced (and subsequently "sentenced") that is the issue?

I know it is for me. As I said, I wouldn't support the idea. I just don't know that it's anymore constitutionally invasive than measures that currently exist. Between inconvenience and cost, I don't think it would be worth it. There are plenty of safety measures that aren't implemented because they just aren't feasible, even if they are noble. That's how I feel about this one. Still, waving the constitution around over it seems a little dramatic.

Airport security? Are you even a little OK with patdowns and full body scans of you gramma or your kids? Damn!

Its an outrage. And once again we give up our liberties to gain a little short term false security. Read Franklins quote again. ponder it for a while.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

No way. I drive just fine when I'm drunk.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by shirtsleeve

Its time we all wake up and understand the government cannot, now nor it ever could, regulate or mandate a safer society. Or a healthy society. Or a moral society. This false thinking needs to stop. NOW.

What I mean, if you read my three posts here is that people who are drunk and have to drive will find a way. A friend. A pump. A CO2 cartridge device. They will find a way.

In the mean time, the rest of us will pay higher taxes to regulate this failure. We will pay huge costs in legal cases against the govt. We will be forced to be treated like the bad guys and blow into the straw to start the car, when the drunks would never do that. They would know better.

We would pay and suffer, and the bad guys would not be affected.

"Government can not solve our problems. Government is our problem"

Ronald Reagan.

[Predarat]

Not at all, but they should get rid of drunk tanks used in alot of states, and instead put DUI offenders in with the real population for a night.

[MOhillbilly]

you know they have to calibrate interlocks every month/weeks right?

how about we just kill all the stoopid people instead?

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by Rooster

I might if they also added a sleep deprivation test, age test, prescription drug test, illegal drug test, anger assessment test, cell phone in the off position test, no eating while driving test, no make up application test, and NFL team loyalty test before you could start a car.

You know, as ridiculous as this might sound, it actually makes a lot of sense. Think about it. If they are to add a blow test for starting your car, why not some (or all) of these things? Where does it stop?

[BIG_DADDY]

Hell no, I don't want to pay for that shit. The pendulum has to start swinging back the other direction in what has become our ridiculously over the top safety first society.

[DMAC]

How about, the first DUI you get, you lose your license for 5 years. The second is a felony that puts you behind bars for a couple years.

[Valiant]

No. Unless they up the limit a lot. One to two beers puts you over the .08 on the majority of people. Trust me it is not as big problem as exagerated. If you added up all the lives lost by statistics in this country we would not have any population by their numbers.

Shit, you will have an 85yo oldman drink one beer, smoked in his younger days, not wear his seatbelt and go have a heart attack on the road and his death will get credited to drinking and smoking by the statistics.

Would rather they do away the ba test and just do sobriety test. Cops should know better as they drive drunk more then regular citizens.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Valiant

No. Unless they up the limit a lot. One to two beers puts you over the .08 on the majority of people. Trust me it is not as big problem as exagerated. If you added up all the lives lost by statistics in this country we would not have any population by their numbers.

Shit, you will have an 85yo oldman drink one beer, smoked in his younger days, not wear his seatbelt and go have a heart attack on the road and his death will get credited to drinking and smoking by the statistics.Would rather they do away the ba test and just do sobriety test. Cops should know better as they drive drunk more then regular citizens.

Another alcohol related accident.

I don't condone drinking and driving but every since I heard the term alcohol related accident I new the stats were skewed.


PhilFree


PhilFree

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Bump

no, .08 is like 1 beer.

How about 2.0?

[Iowanian]

I'd rather they just install a spike on your steering wheel after the first offense.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

OK, poorly worded late at night. There is NOT a causal relationship between driving drunk and swerving into the other lane nor is there a causal relationship between driving drunk and running into the back of someone. There is, however, a strong correlation between those activities: People who drive drunk tend to swerve; people who do drive drunk tend to have slower reflexes. Better?

Your argument regarding seat belts and helmets still don't apply to anything.

Nowhere in this thread did I argue about seat belts and helmets, or equate those laws with DUI laws. All I did was point out that we'd been having a similar discussion regarding the willing sacrificing of freedoms in another thread:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

People are always willing to justify the sacrificing of freedoms instead of accepting that freedoms can come with a price. We were having the same sort of back and forth about helmet and seat belt laws in the Vrabel thread.

As to your correlation argument, there's also a correlation between driving sober and swerving, and there are correlations between all manner of distracted driving and slower reaction times.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Hell no, I don't want to pay for that shit. The pendulum has to start swinging back the other direction in what has become our ridiculously over the top safety first society.

You act as though drinking and driving doesn't cost us anything as it stands.

Wanting to saves lives from those who have no regard for the life of others could hardly be construed as "over the top safety".

To put someone elses life at risk so a person dont have to go through the trouible of finding a ride is over the top. I agree with you in concept, but not this topic.