NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

frenchyd said:

  As for pedestrians.  They too walk around with the phone shoved in their ear focusing on the conversation rather than where they are walking. 

Pedestrians have the right of way. You can't fix stupid, and cars have to watch out for them and make every attempt to avoid them.
 

frenchyd said:

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:  ...first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever.  ...

This bit of discussion reinforces the point that the topic is about the government implementing a control measure on all people rather than having individuals face the consequences of their bad actions.

How many drunk drivers are on the road in 24 hours?   And don't get stopped?   
  Is that a big enough cross section for you?  
 The cop can stop one car driving drunk and a lot may go by free while the officer is following procedures. 
   It hasn't worked so far with just enforcement. People are still dying.  
 What do you suggest?   Hanging?  Horsewhipping? Life in jail without parol ? 
     Give me a solution not just a complaint.  

How about, first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever. 

No need to hang people unless they are convicted of a hanging offense.

and yes, everyone can suffer from one individual's bad actions, but making everone suffer to prevent one individual's bad actions seems suboptimal.

frenchyd said: 

Luckily the person on the bicycle or walking tends to pay the price for their misconduct.  So I guess there is a de facto Law? 

Depending on location, in almost all cases where you hit a pedestrian, you're guilty of failure to do (something) and you're in the wrong.

This is how we got automatic braking, etc.

In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :

Not always. If a person isn't paying attention and walks into traffic the driver doesn't pay.  Same with the bicycle. 
 Not saying always. But usually.  

In reply to frenchyd :

It's not a federal matter. It's a state and local issue. Since you're so in tune with your local politicians that is where you should start. Stay the hell outta my state. 

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

frenchyd said: 

Luckily the person on the bicycle or walking tends to pay the price for their misconduct.  So I guess there is a de facto Law? 

Depending on location, in almost all cases where you hit a pedestrian, you're guilty of failure to do (something) and you're in the wrong.

This is how we got automatic braking, etc.

I'm normally pretty meh on tech in cars, fine for you but I'll pass, but I'm pretty sure emergency braking saved me an expensive hospital trip. Standard CUV driver not paying attention leaving an apt complex got halfway into my lane, nose only dipped when I started to cross them at 45mph. They seemed mildly inconvenienced but barely hesitated to continue on their merry, homicidal way while I contemplated a violent U-turn and some homicide of my own against someone who shoulddn't even be driving in FL, not to mention a civilized state. All of that is completely off topic but this is Page 6 so we're all off topic.

L5wolvesf said:

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

This bit of discussion reinforces the point that the topic is about the government implementing a control measure on all people rather than having individuals face the consequences of their bad actions.

All people pay for the consequences of individuals bad actions (DUIs) in the form of: Law enforcement, emergency responders, hospital costs not covered by insurance, court costs, and incarceration costs.

You make it sound like law enforcement and such things exist exclusively because of DUIs. They're on payroll already, as part of that pesky "society" thing. We already live in the most incarcerated country on the planet, by both number of people and percentage of population behind bars. Our (private, for profit) prisons are essentially slave labor farms, our criminal justice system is a revolving door, and frankly makes an enormous mockery of justice already, before we start trying to incarcerate a third of the population. 

Full link

Is it a problem? Yes absolutely. Has it gotten better over time? Exponentially. Do we need even more government intervention in our day to day lives? Hell motherberkeley no. 

Want to make a big show about cracking down on DUIs? Quit chalking tires at bars, and start setting up checkpoints to leave parking lots at concerts, sportsball games, and nascar races. A stadium full of 40-50 thousand people get busted at once, it'll change things real hard real fast. Except, that would inconvenience the important people so obviously that wouldn't fly. 

frenchyd said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to frenchyd :

No. You won't. You will do what you always do. Shift goalposts, change the story and ramble in about god knows what again. The answers have already been given pages ago. Enforce the laws we have. 2 or 3 and you don't get out of jail period. Let the rest of the population live their lives. Inviting more government overreach is NEVER the answer. You would think for someone who"fought for your freedoms" you'd be a bit more hesitant to just give them up. Apparently they didn't teach common sense in the navy. 

No what the Navy  taught me is sometimes solutions are complex  not simple.  
  Just say no didn't work for drugs and throwing people in jail for life is not going to  pass the cruel and unusual punishment test. But ignore that,  keep it simple.  How many prisoners do you think it would take to stop drunk driving  

   since it costs around $50,000 a year to keep one person in jail.   How high do you want your taxes to go?   Considering you're only locking up a drunk it's not a very good return on your taxes. 
   It's not like a school or bridge.  Or even protecting our country 
 

Oh, but there was a drug and alcohol prevention program that did work, and as always, government thought that they could do better, which is how you got that abysmal failure, the "truth" campaign.

BTW, Guido won the very first GRM Challenge, and used to be a regular contributor to this forum.

http://godsavetheclown.com/

frenchyd said:

It's also called entrapment.  
     Without a law degree I can't tell you why but it gets the conviction tossed.  

"Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important."

frenchyd said:

It's also called entrapment.  
     Without a law degree I can't tell you why but it gets the conviction tossed. 

No that is 100% not entrapment....

In reply to frenchyd :

So you would be OK with sending the cops by your house for a warrantless search for drugs to save a few people? How about your car? Break out the anal probes boys, frenchyd is good with anything the state requires to save a few. 

Have you installed one of these on your car yet? How about your bus? If not I'm calling you out as a hypocrite. Why are you not doing your part to stop drunk driving? After you install them I might be more willing to listen to your opinion. Until they I'll assume you are being your usual over the top argumentative frenchyd.

And about that  EV I asked you about in the other thread, I never did get an answer. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Maybe take a look at "legislative immunity" with regards to politicians and DUIs, and see how many sitting federal level politicians WALK AWAY FROM THEM because they're "in an active legislative session".

I'm trying to call out hypocrisy and bullE36 M3, you're trying to pretend the America from civics books written in the 60s still exists. 

More "laws for thee but not for me" bullE36 M3. Being on the guillotines, throw out the law books all together, and start over from nothing.

In reply to frenchyd :

Are you seriously comparing a dui interlock to a key? If so we're done with this conversation. My brain isn't screwed up enough to make the leap.

Did you have some bad crack with dinner or just too much alcohol? 

Make sure you blow in your tube before you drive anywhere. 

Meh. It was all over when baby  warnings became mandatory on new cars. Go ahead and put the breathalyzer in. I believe I have likely bought my last new car anyway.

In reply to Toyman! :

He's been doing that all along. I don't think he understands that keys are to protect your property from theft, not to prevent you from driving your own car without it. Or something.

In reply to Duke :

I honestly think he does it to stir up E36 M3.

I blame myself. I know better than to interact with him and 99% of the time I ignore whatever he posts. Sometimes though. 

I'm still waiting for an answer about what EV he drives. Pretty sure I know the answer to that. 

frenchyd said:

Steve_Jones said:

frenchyd said:

Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney  they might get away.   The average guy?  No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.  
     Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc.   then they announce publicly on the radio and TV. 
 

The third arrest? If you want to deter people, make it the first. Before you come up with new regulations, why not make the existing regulation stronger, and enforce it? If you make the decision to drive after consuming alcohol, that is 100% on you.  The excuses of why you made that choice, do not matter.

I'm all in favor of that.   Places in the world where heavy drinking is the norm, still don't have. The problems we do in America. 
   That's because the first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever.  ( in some places). 
 We are soft here in America.  
"oh, through your poor judgements  you lost your license? You can have it back if you attend •••••• and only drive to and from work.    Here in Minnesota pay the fines etc and then you get a plain white plate that starts with a W ( for Whiskey) 

WW for 2 WWW for 3 etc  I think the record is 7 

 you also lose your right of presumed innocent so a cop can pull you over whenever he feels like it.  Then you are required to submit to testing. 

EDIT: Nevermind, I had something typed out about probable cause and how it works with the 4th Amendment, but there is no point. 

Sounds like this would have a disparate impact on diabetics. 

Having been in a car with a breathalyzer, they're too annoying to make this feasible. Putting on your seatbelt is fine. It takes 1 second. The breathalyzer takes about 30 seconds in my recollection. Not gonna fly.