Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So who's up for some drunk driving?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So who's up for some drunk driving?

    In the state of Illinois the first offense of drunk driving means putting on an apparatus that you have to blow in or your car won't start.

    If it was made affordable would anyone be opposed to make that machine mandatory so all drivers would have to blow before starting their car.

    I do not know if they can be set to allow for a safe level. Lets say for this discussion it could be.

    It may not eliminate drunk driving all together, but it surely but a huge dent in it.

  • #2
    New career opportunity: Hang out in bar parking lots stone cold sober at 2:00 A.M. and charge drunks $20.00 a pop to blow into their alcohol blood level detection apparatuses.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

    Comment


    • #3
      unwarranted search.
      I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by heyelander View Post
        unwarranted search.
        It would only be a search if the government collected the information. If they basically said that all cars sold in the US have to have a breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting until someone with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit blows in it, I don't see how that's any more unconstitutional than, say, requiring drivers to by insurance.

        Edit to add: If car manufacturers just offered this as an option, rather than it coming in as a government mandate, how much market interest do you think there would be? I'd bet a fair number of parents would want it installed in their teenager's car.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
          It would only be a search if the government collected the information. If they basically said that all cars sold in the US have to have a breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting until someone with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit blows in it, I don't see how that's any more unconstitutional than, say, requiring drivers to by insurance.

          Edit to add: If car manufacturers just offered this as an option, rather than it coming in as a government mandate, how much market interest do you think there would be? I'd bet a fair number of parents would want it installed in their teenager's car.
          I'll bet insurance companies would be willing to incentivize it with a safe driver discount, too, if it could be proofed against the type of shenanigans described in Post #2.
          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
          "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
          "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
            It would only be a search if the government collected the information. If they basically said that all cars sold in the US have to have a breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting until someone with a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit blows in it, I don't see how that's any more unconstitutional than, say, requiring drivers to by insurance.

            Edit to add: If car manufacturers just offered this as an option, rather than it coming in as a government mandate, how much market interest do you think there would be? I'd bet a fair number of parents would want it installed in their teenager's car.
            Provided that insurance companies offered a substantial discount for cars having it installed, I think that would work.

            Comment


            • #7
              So ask yourselves, why haven't they done it? Seems obvious to me that they've had these discussions and so must have determined that it is in their economic interests to keep things as they are. From a public health perspective, this is a no-brainer, but from an insurance industry perspective, they probably make more money from the higher premiums being paid by all the drivers who get busted.
              If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
              - Terence McKenna

              Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

              How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DMT View Post
                So ask yourselves, why haven't they done it?
                Some other possible reasons:
                1) The reliability and accuracy of the devices, particularly over time. These often need regular calibration.
                2) As pointed out above, the system can be easily defeated if the driver and blower are different.
                3) There could be emergency situations where the device prevents a driver from escaping an even more dangerous situation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DMT View Post
                  So ask yourselves, why haven't they done it? Seems obvious to me that they've had these discussions and so must have determined that it is in their economic interests to keep things as they are. From a public health perspective, this is a no-brainer, but from an insurance industry perspective, they probably make more money from the higher premiums being paid by all the drivers who get busted.
                  I am thinking it has more to do with bar revenue and taxes than insurance. I would think that paying for the victims of drunk drivers outweighs the larger premiums from high risk drivers. Many insurance companies drop high risk drivers rather than take a chance on them with the higher premium.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by senorsheep View Post
                    New career opportunity: Hang out in bar parking lots stone cold sober at 2:00 A.M. and charge drunks $20.00 a pop to blow into their alcohol blood level detection apparatuses.
                    Nope and here is why:

                    Bypassing an Ignition Interlock System

                    The makers of ignition interlock systems have built the devices to resist tampering and trickery. The interlock device is programmed to lock a vehicle and report any actions attempting to:
                    •Use another person or mechanical device to blow into the machine
                    •Refuse to submit a test
                    •Tamper with the device

                    Some brands of interlock devices require the driver to suck in air or make a humming noise while blowing through the breathalyzer, tasks that a machine could not mimic. Some new devices even take a picture of the person blowing into the machine.

                    The random tests while driving make it impossible to have a sober friend take the test before the car will start. If a person refuses to take one of the random tests, the headlights and taillights will flash and horn will sound obnoxiously until he or she pulls over to perform the breath test. If the device is tampered with, it will lock out the ignition and record the incident in its database, which will downloaded by the supplier and turned over to the court

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How much would one cost? If these are standard equipment the price of a car just went up to cover the cost.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There's a fundamental disconnect between doing what's right for the population in general and commerce. I watch every night as servers where I work allow people to get obliterated. It takes a real effort to be cut off in a casino. As long as there's money to be made off of the sale of alcohol, the prosecution of drunk drivers and health care for those suffering from alcohol related issues, there won't be any "real" solutions to the problem. It'd be nice if it were different, but like most things in our society today-- the monetary gain outweighs what's best for the public.
                        If I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011

                        Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
                        Martin Luther King, Jr.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd be dead set against such a device being mandatory. If it could be an option in cars and discounts for insurance are given, I'm fine with that. Give people the choice.

                          Make it mandatory, what's next? We have to take a blood and hair sample and check to see if we're on any type of drugs that would make driving hazardous? A test to make sure you're awake enough to drive?

                          Here in Maryland it's illegal to drive while talking on your cell phone. Yet, I see probably one out of every ten drivers with phone to ear chatting away and...well...MAYBE paying attention. The way folks drive around here, I'm guessing they aren't paying attention. Maybe better enforcement of that law (and the no-texting law also) would be highly beneficial. I guarantee you more people drive with phone to ear than drive intoxicated.
                          Considering his only baseball post in the past year was bringing up a 3 year old thread to taunt Hornsby and he's never contributed a dime to our hatpass, perhaps?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pogues View Post
                            I'd be dead set against such a device being mandatory. If it could be an option in cars and discounts for insurance are given, I'm fine with that. Give people the choice.

                            Make it mandatory, what's next? We have to take a blood and hair sample and check to see if we're on any type of drugs that would make driving hazardous? A test to make sure you're awake enough to drive?

                            Here in Maryland it's illegal to drive while talking on your cell phone. Yet, I see probably one out of every ten drivers with phone to ear chatting away and...well...MAYBE paying attention. The way folks drive around here, I'm guessing they aren't paying attention. Maybe better enforcement of that law (and the no-texting law also) would be highly beneficial. I guarantee you more people drive with phone to ear than drive intoxicated.
                            Pogues!! Good to hear from you!!

                            Maryland?! When did you move? I hope all is well with you!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gregg View Post
                              Pogues!! Good to hear from you!!

                              Maryland?! When did you move? I hope all is well with you!
                              Moved in August. I now live close to where I grew up and near my immediate family...dad and sister. Hopefully I'll even find a teaching job out here for next school year!
                              Considering his only baseball post in the past year was bringing up a 3 year old thread to taunt Hornsby and he's never contributed a dime to our hatpass, perhaps?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X