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

[Fat Elvis]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

[LiveSteam]

yes. I have seen to many lives destroyed by drinking & driving.

[Bugeater]

Eh, they'd just take someone else's car.

[Brianfo]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

Yes!!

[KurtCobain]

Eh, they'd just take someone else's car.

I think he means all cars.

[Just Passin' By]

No

[LiveSteam]

I think what he is saying?? If the gov forced the auto makers to put interlock systems on all cars. Its a far reach. you have millions of used cars that would have to be out fitted

[LiveSteam]

I think the penalty should be higher. & judges that let 2 & 3 times losers back on the streets should be held accountable ,if that said peep kills someone while driving drunk again. That judge should be in BIG TIME TROUBLE.

[Fat Elvis]

I think he means all cars.

Yes. It would take some time, maybe 10 years or so...but I think it could be done.

[shirtsleeve]

"Hi baby, blow this for me, will ya?"

[trndobrd]

No. Nor do I want a car with pre-deployed airbags.

[Bugeater]

I think he means all cars.
Oh. sorry, I've been drinking. Speaking of which, I'm out of beer and I need to run to the store to get some more.

[notorious]

I think the penalty should be higher. & judges that let 2 & 3 times losers back on the streets should be held accountable ,if that said peep kills someone while driving drunk again. That judge should be in BIG TIME TROUBLE.

German Law: Get one DUI, you lose your driving privaleges FOR LIFE.


My added Law: Get second DUI, 3 year mandatory prison.



That might make some think twice.

[philfree]

No. Waht if someone falls in a fire camping in a remote place and everyone there had had something to drink.... the car won't let them drive the injured party to rescue? No there is to many unforseen incidents that could jepordize the saftey of individuals. No! Life is short and life is fleeting....hell no!


PhilFree:arrow:

[shirtsleeve]

Bottom line is that people who want to function illegally will function illegally. I do not want the government to sanction or mandate ANYTHING that is supposed to be "good for us all".
Its like guns. The bad guys will find a way. The good guys will pay the money for them to do it.

[BigMeatballDave]

Yes. Without question.

[BigMeatballDave]

No. Waht if someone falls in a fire camping in a remote place and everyone there had had something to drink.... the car won't let them drive the injured party to rescue? No there is to many unforseen incidents that could jepordize the saftey of individuals. No! Life is short and life is fleeting....hell no!


PhilFree:arrow:Jesus. Could you have come up with something more obscure?

[Demonpenz]

putting people with DUI's in jail makes no sense, fine them a bunch then release them so they can work and pay more taxes.

[shirtsleeve]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Benjamin Franklin

[Bump]

no, .08 is like 1 beer.

[PornChief]

can't see those things working, people will just carry a bike pump or something to blow into the locking thingy.

[Fat Elvis]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Benjamin Franklin

Please explain the essential liberty that is being taken away. Are you being denied the right to drive? Are you being denied the right to drink? Somehow, I don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered those words.

[Just Passin' By]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Benjamin Franklin

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.

[007]

"Hi baby, blow this for me, will ya?"Bingo.

They would have to set it up so every time you get out of the drivers seat you have to reblow.

[BigMeatballDave]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Benjamin FranklinBen didnt have to worry about drunk drivers.

[kysirsoze]

can't see those things working, people will just carry a bike pump or something to blow into the locking thingy.

You have to hum while blowing and continue to blow as you continue to drive.


















NTTAWWT :p

[Fat Elvis]

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.

I don't think they are the same thing. Helmet laws and seat belt laws protect you from your own actions; a mandatory ignition interlock law would protect others from you while you are 1) breaking a law that pretty much everyone universally agrees needs to be in place, and 2) engaging in an activity that is a leading cause of avoidable accidents, injuries and death.

Not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on.

Not wearing a helmet isn't going to cause you to slam into the back of a parked car.

[shirtsleeve]

Please explain the essential liberty that is being taken away. Are you being denied the right to drive? Are you being denied the right to drink? Somehow, I don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered those words.

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.

[Just Passin' By]

I don't think they are the same thing. Helmet laws and seat belt laws protect you from your own actions; a mandatory ignition interlock law would protect others from you while you are 1) breaking a law that pretty much everyone universally agrees needs to be in place, and 2) engaging in an activity that is a leading cause of avoidable accidents, injuries and death.

Not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on.

Not wearing a helmet isn't going to cause you to slam into the back of a parked car.

You've got to be fucking kidding me with this argument.

[kysirsoze]

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.

No shit. Why do we waste millions, nay billions a year on police protection?? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!! STOP!!!!!

[kysirsoze]

You've got to be ****ing kidding me with this argument.

You're the one who drew a parallel between helmet laws and anti-drunk driving laws that doesn't exist.

[philfree]

Jesus. Could you have come up with something more obscure?


Yes I could. Is that what you want me to do?


There has to be a better way.


PhilFree:arrow:

[shirtsleeve]

No shit. Why do we waste millions, nay billions a year on police protection?? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!! STOP!!!!!

DC in 5..4..3..2..1..


But besides that..

Police is a different issue. They are there to protect our constitutional rights to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, by others who would assume power over us and take those rights away from us. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Lets not be rediculous.

[|Zach|]

Jesus. Could you have come up with something more obscure?

Dude loves his booze.

[kysirsoze]

Yes I could. Is that what you want me to do?


There has to be a better way.


PhilFree:arrow:

How about something less obscure. I'm interested to know if you think a significant enough contingent of people would need to drive while intoxicated to save lives that it would come close to offsetting the lives saved by the approach he suggests.


For the record I'm not in favor of the OP's proposal, but not because I think it would endanger lives.

[Fat Elvis]

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.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Ignition interlock systems are pretty tamper proof nowadays.

http://www.drivinglaws.org/legal-advice/dui-dwi/aggravated-dui/how-does-ignition-interlock-device-work

Many require positive driver identification. That would result in fewer stolen vehicles as well....

[kysirsoze]

DC in 5..4..3..2..1..


But besides that..

Police is a different issue. They are there to protect our constitutional rights to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, by others who would assume power over us and take those rights away from us. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Lets not be rediculous.

Obviously I was exaggerating, but my point was we have government agencies taking away our rights everyday. Some of it is acceptable, some not. Saying you can't legislate safety, though, makes no sense to me.

I'm with you on the legislating morality thing. (And NOW we can go to DC)

[Demonpenz]

I would kill someone. I just got remote starter for the winter

[Just Passin' By]

You're the one who drew a parallel between helmet laws and anti-drunk driving laws that doesn't exist.

That's not the parallel I drew. I noted a similar discussion took place about those laws. I didn't equate them.

[shirtsleeve]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Ignition interlock systems are pretty tamper proof nowadays.

http://www.drivinglaws.org/legal-advice/dui-dwi/aggravated-dui/how-does-ignition-interlock-device-work

Many require positive driver identification. That would result in fewer stolen vehicles as well....

Yes really.

Are machine guns, RPG's, mines, mortars and grenades legally available to felons? Been to the streets of Detroit lately?

The bad guys find a way. There would be a black market business in breath equipment for drunks in the billions. Wake up!!!!!

When are people going to finally understand that any Federal mandate or regulation will almost always backfire?

And why are people lately so free to abandon their assumption of innocence, a constitutional right, to the government, for a little false security?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU ARE BEING CO-OPTED BY THE NANNY STATE!!!!!


edit: our whole way of life is based on self government, self responsibility, and self reliance. That IS our Constitution. Stop trying to make us something we never were or wanted to be.

[kysirsoze]

That's not the parallel I drew. I noted a similar discussion took place about those laws. I didn't equate them.

Then I'm confused about what part of his post you took issue with. He seemed to be pointing out the two weren't equal because one puts others at risk as opposed to just yourself. If you agree why does he have to be kidding you? Because what he said is too obvious?

[Just Passin' By]

Then I'm confused about what part of his post you took issue with. He seemed to be pointing out the two weren't equal because one puts others at risk as opposed to just yourself. If you agree why does he have to be kidding you? Because what he said is too obvious?

No, his argument was lousy on several levels. Only one of those was the attempt to distance the particular laws from one another when I'd made no attempt at an equation.

[kysirsoze]

Yes really.

Are machine guns, RPG's, mines, mortars and grenades legally available to felons? Been to the streets of Detroit lately?

The bad guys find a way. There would be a black market business in breath equipment for drunks in the billions. Wake up!!!!!

When are people going to finally understand that any Federal mandate or regulation will almost always backfire?

And why are people lately so free to abandon their assumption of innocence, a constitutional right, to the government, for a little false security?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU ARE BEING CO-OPTED BY THE NANNY STATE!!!!!


edit: our whole way of life is based on self government, self responsibility, and self reliance. That IS our Constitution. Stop trying to make us something we never were or wanted to be.

Gun control is a worthless analogy. Do you really think most people would premeditate their drunk driving to a point that they would go to the same lengths it takes to obtain an illegal firearm? Drunk driving is typically a crime of negligence and poor judgement, not malice.

[kysirsoze]

No, his argument was lousy on several levels. Only one of those was the attempt to distance the particular laws from one another when I'd made no attempt at an equation.

Ok. So you took time to mock an argument that you agreed with in principle, but felt was poorly made. That's kinda weird.

[shirtsleeve]

Gun control is a worthless analogy. Do you really think most people would premeditate their drunk driving to a point that they would go to the same lengths it takes to obtain an illegal firearm? Drunk driving is typically a crime of negligence and poor judgement, not malice.

Ask anyone who goes out on a Friday night. Give them a breath device to pass the test, and they will buy it, go out, party and not care.

Again you are all missing the point. You are driving home from work, do you want to be violated like that because someone on a Friday night found a way to beat it? AND!!! They will find a way to beat it.

Think about Franklins statement.

Why are you all so eagar to let the government in like that?

PLEASE!!

Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the federalist papers. Understand what principals our country was founded under. Then thoughts like this would be as foreign to you as they are to me. Its not what this country is founded under.

[CrazyPhuD]

Please explain the essential liberty that is being taken away. Are you being denied the right to drive? Are you being denied the right to drink? Somehow, I don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he uttered those words.

This one is actually extremely easy. The liberty that is being surrendered is the presumption of innocence. When you drive today you are presumed to not be committing a crime and are able to drive until you exhibit probable cause that you have or are committing a crime.

When you add in an interlock into every car regardless of if the driver has been convicted of a DUI you change the presumption of guilt. You are now assumed to be committing a crime every time you start your car. Only when you can prove that you are not committing a crime are you allowed to drive. If you refuse to blow the car will not start because the system assumes you are drunk UNTIL you can prove that you are not.

It may not sound like a significant change but it is HUGE.

As they say in life the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intent is noble, but the price is enormous.

[shirtsleeve]

This one is actually extremely easy. The liberty that is being surrendered is the presumption of innocence. When you drive today you are presumed to not be committing a crime and are able to drive until you exhibit probable cause that you have or are committing a crime.

When you add in an interlock into every car regardless of if the driver has been convicted of a DUI you change the presumption of guilt. You are now assumed to be committing a crime every time you start your car. Only when you can prove that you are not committing a crime are you allowed to drive. If you refuse to blow the car will not start because the system assumes you are drunk UNTIL you can prove that you are not.

It may not sound like a significant change but it is HUGE.

As they say in life the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intent is noble, but the price is enormous.

Thank you. You said it like I did sorta a dozen times. I guess you are better at this than I am. I thought I made that point clear but I guess i fugged it up.

[philfree]

How about something less obscure. I'm interested to know if you think a significant enough contingent of people would need to drive while intoxicated to save lives that it would come close to offsetting the lives saved by the approach he suggests.
For the record I'm not in favor of the OP's proposal, but not because I think it would endanger lives.

There is no way to measure.


Maybe this technology shouldn't be across the board./Tod Haley


PhilFree:arrow:

[Just Passin' By]

Ok. So you took time to mock an argument that you agreed with in principle, but felt was poorly made. That's kinda weird.

Who said I agreed with it in principle? His argument was lousy. It wasn't just because he was arguing against a non-existent equation.

DUI does not cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on. There are DUI situations that don't end in a crossed yellow line and head on collision, and there are sober drivers who do cross the line and hit oncoming traffic.

DUI does not cause you to slam into the back of a parked car. There are DUI situations that don't end with slamming into a parked car, and there are sober drivers who do hit parked cars.

[shirtsleeve]

Who said I agreed with it in principle? His argument was lousy. It wasn't just because he was arguing against a non-existent equation.

DUI does not cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on. There are millions of DUI situations that don't end in a crossed yellow line and head on collision, and there are sober drivers who do cross the line and hit oncoming traffic.

DUI does not cause you to slam into the back of a parked car. There are millions of DUI situations that don't end with slamming into a parked car, and there are sober drivers who do hit parked cars.

Dues

Who's arguement is a lousy one? My arguement is about the constitutional presumption of innocence and the ability of asshats to circumvent laws while law abiding citizens suffer the constitutional violation of rights and pay taxes to yet another innefective government overlord...

[Just Passin' By]

Dues

Who's arguement is a lousy one? My arguement is about the constitutional presumption of innocence and the ability of asshats to circumvent laws while law abiding citizens suffer the constitutional violation of rights and pay taxes to yet another innefective government overlord...

Fat Elvis'

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7542096&postcount=27

[shirtsleeve]

Fat Elvis'

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7542096&postcount=27

OK we's cool....

[greg63]

Just make drunk driving a felony punishable by death to be carried out no later then 24 hours after sentencing. :D

[philfree]

Just make drunk driving a felony punishable by death to be carried out no later then 24 hours after sentencing. :D

I been sittin here
Thinkin
and Drinkin


Thank god I'm at home and don't have to call a Limo!



PhilFree:arrow:
~does not drink and drive~

[JOhn]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

Ignition interlock systems are pretty tamper proof nowadays.

http://www.drivinglaws.org/legal-advice/dui-dwi/aggravated-dui/how-does-ignition-interlock-device-work

Many require positive driver identification. That would result in fewer stolen vehicles as well....

Or until you need to take your neighbors car and it won't start cause you are not calibrated for it.

Or the wonderful rolling test were you have to blow when driving, yea that's F'ing safe

[greg63]

I been sittin here
Thinkin
and Drinkin


Thank god I'm at home and don't have to call a Limo!



PhilFree:arrow:
~does not drink and drive~

LMAO :thumb:

[alnorth]

This one is actually extremely easy. The liberty that is being surrendered is the presumption of innocence. When you drive today you are presumed to not be committing a crime and are able to drive until you exhibit probable cause that you have or are committing a crime.

That argument doesn't work. With this "solution" you have an even greater presumption of innocence, since... you know.... the car is moving. Sure, someone else could have blown into it for you, but if its a borderline drunk/not drunk case the fact that the car started is a point in your favor.

A better argument is simple cost. Money, thats it. Making everyone pay extra because of the misdeeds of a few is arguably not worth it. We shouldn't try to save human lives at all costs, at some point the cost isn't worth it.

[DTLB58]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

I would just eliminate alcohol from the face of the earth period.

[shirtsleeve]

That argument doesn't work. With this "solution" you have an even greater presumption of innocence, since... you know.... the car is moving. Sure, someone else could have blown into it for you, but if its a borderline drunk/not drunk case the fact that the car started is a point in your favor.

A better argument is simple cost. Money, thats it. Making everyone pay extra because of the misdeeds of a few is arguably not worth it. We shouldn't try to save human lives at all costs, at some point the cost isn't worth it.

No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?

sad. really sad.

please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...

[Phobia]

What if a group of friends are shooting fireworks on the side of a mountain but one of the displays simulates a rainbow and then everybody is like - oh, what is the meaning of this... and then a shot misfires and discharges hundreds of fireworks on the ground injuring dozens of friends and really the only person without his legs blown off is Whiskey Jack. Plus the school bus you drove up there is a stick shift. What then?

[shirtsleeve]

What if a group of friends are shooting fireworks on the side of a mountain but one of the displays simulates a rainbow and then everybody is like - oh, what is the meaning of this... and then a shot misfires and discharges hundreds of fireworks on the ground injuring dozens of friends and really the only person without his legs blown off is Whiskey Jack. Plus the school bus you drove up there is a stick shift. What then?

Duhh, call Charlie and let him fly the bus off the mountain!

[JOhn]

What if a group of friends are shooting fireworks on the side of a mountain but one of the displays simulates a rainbow and then everybody is like - oh, what is the meaning of this... and then a shot misfires and discharges hundreds of fireworks on the ground injuring dozens of friends and really the only person without his legs blown off is Whiskey Jack. Plus the school bus you drove up there is a stick shift. What then?

Hell if you're on a mountain, just coast the bus down in neutral

[|Zach|]

Hell if you're on a mountain, just coast the bus down in neutral

LETS DO THISSSSSSSSS

http://www.backpocketcoo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Burning-Man-Bus.jpg

[alnorth]

No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?

sad. really sad.

please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...

You are being silly.

"What? Why do I have to blow into this to start the car? You are assuming I am guilty and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

I can take that phrase and play Mad Libs for comedic affect.

"What? Why do I have to pass a test to get my license? You are assuming I am incapable of driving and have to prove my skill, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show proof of insurance every single time I'm stopped? You are assuming I am guilty of driving uninsured and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to go through an X-ray to fly? You are assuming I am a terrorist and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to have a background check to be hired for this government job? You are assuming I lied about not being a felon and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show ID when I swipe this card? You are assuming I am a thief and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

In the real world we have to be screened for all kinds of things. This is *NOT* a search without cause because no one is searching you. We're hypothetically passing a law saying all cars must have these devices. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't drive.

Again, a better argument is cost. This solution is too expensive for too many people to justify whatever lives might hypothetically be saved.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

http://homelandsecurityus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DTOM.jpg

If I fuck up and hurt someone, I'll face the consequences.

[Slainte]

I would just eliminate alcohol from the face of the earth period.

You really should be shot to death.

[ClevelandBronco]

If I **** up and hurt someone, I'll face the consequences.

Poor choice of words. You'd only face some of the consequences. A victim's family would face many of them on their own without you and you could do nothing to change that.

[CrazyPhuD]

You are being silly.

"What? Why do I have to blow into this to start the car? You are assuming I am guilty and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

I can take that phrase and play Mad Libs for comedic affect.

"What? Why do I have to pass a test to get my license? You are assuming I am incapable of driving and have to prove my skill, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show proof of insurance every single time I'm stopped? You are assuming I am guilty of driving uninsured and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to go through an X-ray to fly? You are assuming I am a terrorist and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to have a background check to be hired for this government job? You are assuming I lied about not being a felon and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show ID when I swipe this card? You are assuming I am a thief and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

In the real world we have to be screened for all kinds of things. This is *NOT* a search without cause because no one is searching you. We're hypothetically passing a law saying all cars must have these devices. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't drive.

Again, a better argument is cost. This solution is too expensive for too many people to justify whatever lives might hypothetically be saved.

So realistically I don't have the time to spend discussing this and likely won't come back to this thread anytime soon but I'll try to provide a bit more education before I go.

Really this isn't complicated you just need to break it down. Consider what happens when one were to use an interlock system. First step you would breath into the system to allow it to measure you.

This is the first constitutional issue. Breathalyzers are allowed as an exception to self incrimination because the benefit to society vastly outweighs the small loss of individual liberty. However that exception to self incrimination is narrowly defined and one of the conditions is that you must have probable cause to conduct a test. You can't just ask someone to take a breathalyser test just because. There must be reasonable suspicion of being under the influence and if a court determines at trial that there was no probable cause for the test it will get thrown out.

So before you bring up the issue of blanket waving of my rights to probable cause, you're not actually allowed to do that. If you can blanket wave them then you have no rights. Even under implied consent rules you are still allowed to refuse a test if you choose and then you would go to court to defend that decision before you are convicted. In our society you are not punished until you are tried and convicted under due process.

This is the second constitutional issue, due process, when you were to breathe into the machine, it measures a number and immediately passes sentence. If you are measured below the limit your car starts, if you are measured above the limit you are punished and your car is denied to you until such time as you can generate a passing result.

This is a problem because the machine will periodically read high and will periodically read low, this is the nature of electronics. You will never get a 100% accurate device. You are denied due process because you are not allowed to question the accuracy of the reading, you are not allowed to confront your accuser, you are not allowed to present your case to a jury of your peers and you are not even allowed to present your case to a judge. Instead you are tried, convicted and sentenced within a fraction of a second.

Now you may not think that temporary denial of your vehicle is a big punishment but what if it causes you to miss a critical meeting for work that results in you getting fired. That generally small punishment could end up being huge.

When they place these things, they do so generally on multiple offenders and I believe as a condition of their parole for the duration of their parole. It's done because the repeat offender rate is so high that they have to do something to curb them. It's also not done as a condition of driving so much as it is done as a part of their punishment. They lose some of their rights because they are a repeat DUI offender, much like a violent felony offender loses his right to own firearms.

It's a part of our legal system that if you commit a serious enough offense, you can lose rights. But normal people don't lose those rights and even criminals can earn those rights back. That is also part of our system.

I'm sure there are other constitutional issues that just these two but these are the easy ones.

[kysirsoze]

So realistically I don't have the time to spend discussing this and likely won't come back to this thread anytime soon but I'll try to provide a bit more education before I go.

....(etc.)

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.

[kysirsoze]

http://homelandsecurityus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DTOM.jpg

If I fuck up and hurt someone, I'll face the consequences.

And so will they Goddammit. /devils advocate

[kysirsoze]

Who said I agreed with it in principle? His argument was lousy. It wasn't just because he was arguing against a non-existent equation.

DUI does not cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on. There are DUI situations that don't end in a crossed yellow line and head on collision, and there are sober drivers who do cross the line and hit oncoming traffic.

DUI does not cause you to slam into the back of a parked car. There are DUI situations that don't end with slamming into a parked car, and there are sober drivers who do hit parked cars.

How very Jenson71 of you.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

I always wear a helment when I drive drunk so I say no !

[Inspector]

This a crazy idea!!

How would I get to work everyday?

[Fat Elvis]

Fat Elvis'

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7542096&postcount=27

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.

[Saulbadguy]

No, because then I wouldn't be able to drive drunk.

[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]

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]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?

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

[Lzen]

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.

:thumb:

[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]

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]

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:arrow:


PhilFree:arrow:

[Dave Lane]

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]

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:

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]

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.

[vailpass]

First they take your liberties in a thousand little ways. Then they take the rest all at once.
Are you fugging kidding me with this? Half the fun of happy hour is the drive home.

[kysirsoze]

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.

OK. So you are against any airport security whatsoever? Metal detectors and x-rays for your luggage? Don't they assume just as much guilt as a breathalyzer attached to your car? Either way you have to prove you aren't breaking the law to get where you're going.

[FishingRod]

What if we just make the Cars out of Nerf? As long as it’s not Raining , problem solved

[Over-Head]

Would you support mandatory ignition interlock systems on all cars?
As a recovering addict and drinker, absolutly!!

[thebrad84]

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.

This idea would probably work would it not be for the fact that most (if not all) of our prisons are at max capacity and most major cities are having to suspend prison sentences for even some violent offenders as is. That being said, I would rather the government spend more money on expanding prisons (to be able to implement stiffer sentences on dui offenders) then I would on some initiative to implement interlock devices on all vehicles.

[Lzen]

As a recovering addict and drinker, absolutly!!

Canadian opinions don't count.


:p

[vailpass]

As a recovering addict and drinker, absolutly!!

Quitter.

[GoHuge]

Laws aren't very effective in crime prevention nor are they very effective deterrents from keeping people that want to break the law from breaking it. Every dumbass in jail broke a law that was on the books and probably 98% did it knowingly. This law would be pretty easy to get around for a few reasons.

1). It would never be passed. The ACLU will fight tooth-and-nail for your right to party and keep the decision in your hands. Over the course of human history we as people make the wrong decision 95% of the time. A perfect example is allowing an organization like the ACLU to be as prominent as they are.

2). The cost of a deterrent is always part of the decision as to whether or not it will be deployed. Automakers and those that would need to take the lead on this don't have the stomach to do it and the almighty profit-margin would speak up.

3). Hey kid..........

[Brock]

No. I wouldn't mind cars being equipped with breathalyzers, though. I do believe most people would use them to determine if they needed to wait a bit before driving home.

[ClevelandBronco]

No. I wouldn't mind cars being equipped with breathalyzers, though. I do believe most people would use them to determine if they needed to wait a bit before driving home.

I'm finding them as cheap as $20. My guess is that virtually every one of the very few people who care already has one.

[Brock]

I'm finding them as cheap as $20. My guess is that virtually every one of the very few people who care already has one.

Yeah, I understand that most people wouldn't go out looking to buy one. But if one was built into their car, they probably would use them on proper occasion.

[kysirsoze]

Yeah, I understand that most people wouldn't go out looking to buy one. But if one was built into their car, they probably would use them on proper occasion.

It couldn't work like current ignition inhibiting systems. After a couple failed tries, it makes it impossible to start for an hour or something. Sometimes mouthwash alone can set them off, too.

[Brock]

It couldn't work like current ignition inhibiting systems. After a couple failed tries, it makes it impossible to start for an hour or something. Sometimes mouthwash alone can set them off, too.

I don't want it to interfere with the operation of the car. Not talking about a restriction of any kind.

[Over-Head]

Canadian opinions don't count.


:p :harumph: