NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

frenchyd said:

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.

Show/hide post

 

In reply to mtn :

Hopefully issues like that can be sorted before it's mandated.   
 Remember  this is only the comment phase. So now is the time to make your feelings known.   It's not exactly voting yet but if enough people support your feelings. Are articulate and precise what corrections  should be they will make changes to make it acceptable.  

 

I agree with this post, whether I do or not. 

Steve_Jones said:

ProDarwin said:

z31maniac said:

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

I wouldn't say that 14% made a stupid choice.  Many likely didn't comprehend the level of intoxication.  And an number of them were minors likely without a choice.

My son was in a DUI car crash as a passenger.  He was 3.  He sure as berkeley didn't choose to be there.

It sucks that happened, but be mad at the intoxicated driver, as it's their fault, not the rest of the driving public. 

Personal responsibility should apply universally.  Sadly in today's day and age, many want government force used to control everyone.  If you think of other social issues and topics, you will see this clearly.  There are a lot of bad things that happen where individuals should be held accountable.  Sadly there is big demand for legislation to ban, control, regulate, and make law abiding citizens illegal all the time.  I find it interesting how on major issues many will turn a blind eye, but now having to prove you are sober electronically to drive is one step too far.  It's inline with many of the thoughts and ideas posted here frequently.  It's just another slip on the slope to totalitarianism.  You can't clamor for it sometimes and bemoan it others and be consistent in your logic. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I dont think many of the early amendments had many limits. They all have plenty of limits now, but not really in the early days. They even took the time to include things like "shall not be infringed." Id be interested in more specifics of what you are referring to.

He didnt say anything about no one being prevented from doing anything, he said their is a large push to regulate, control and ban law abiding citizens. Youre making quite a jump there.

I also dispute your point that the state has the right to enforce their law as they see fit. What if they saw fit to station a police officer in your house and he had to follow and surveil you at all times, to ensure enforcement of said law? You would agree thats not legal, so obviously there are limits, you two just disagree on where those limits are.

This kind of lines up with the degradation of "innocent until proven guilty." A breathalyzer like device, assumes your guilt and you must prove your innocence to operate the vehicle. In cases like these some people aren't necessarily mad about this specific case, they are mad to see how many people approve of yet more surveillance and monitoring, and the movement farther away from the founding principles little by little. While this specific case may be small, I would think its easy to see how proving your innocence, is contrary to the principles this country was founded on, and its just one of thousands of examples. The response is always "it just.." or "a law abiding citizen has nothing to worry about" and here we are 20 years later and the NSA sees all the pictures of my butthole before my wife does.

Opti said:

...here we are 20 years later and the NSA sees all the pictures of my butthole before my wife does.

If nothing else comes of this thread, I want this quote saved for posterity. We've peaked, folks. Time to move on. 

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I dont think many of the early amendments had many limits. They all have plenty of limits now, but not really in the early days. They even took the time to include things like "shall not be infringed." Id be interested in more specifics of what you are referring to.

He didnt say anything about no one being prevented from doing anything, he said their is a large push to regulate, control and ban law abiding citizens. Youre making quite a jump there.

I also dispute your point that the state has the right to enforce their law as they see fit. What if they saw fit to station a police officer in your house and he had to follow and surveil you at all times, to ensure enforcement of said law? You would agree thats not legal, so obviously there are limits, you two just disagree on where those limits are.

This kind of lines up with the degradation of "innocent until proven guilty." A breathalyzer like device, assumes your guilt and you must prove your innocence to operate the vehicle. In cases like these some people aren't necessarily mad about this specific case, they are mad to see how many people approve of yet more surveillance and monitoring, and the movement farther away from the founding principles little by little. While this specific case may be small, I would think its easy to see how proving your innocence, is contrary to the principles this country was founded on, and its just one of thousands of examples. The response is always "it just.." or "a law abiding citizen has nothing to worry about" and here we are 20 years later and the NSA sees all the pictures of my butthole before my wife does.

Well said. 

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I dont think many of the early amendments had many limits. They all have plenty of limits now, but not really in the early days. They even took the time to include things like "shall not be infringed." Id be interested in more specifics of what you are referring to.

He didnt say anything about no one being prevented from doing anything, he said their is a large push to regulate, control and ban law abiding citizens. Youre making quite a jump there.

I also dispute your point that the state has the right to enforce their law as they see fit. What if they saw fit to station a police officer in your house and he had to follow and surveil you at all times, to ensure enforcement of said law? You would agree thats not legal, so obviously there are limits, you two just disagree on where those limits are.

This kind of lines up with the degradation of "innocent until proven guilty." A breathalyzer like device, assumes your guilt and you must prove your innocence to operate the vehicle. In cases like these some people aren't necessarily mad about this specific case, they are mad to see how many people approve of yet more surveillance and monitoring, and the movement farther away from the founding principles little by little. While this specific case may be small, I would think its easy to see how proving your innocence, is contrary to the principles this country was founded on, and its just one of thousands of examples. The response is always "it just.." or "a law abiding citizen has nothing to worry about" and here we are 20 years later and the NSA sees all the pictures of my butthole before my wife does.

I'm highlighting the part that I think most of us are arguing against. Not supporting DD.

In reply to bobzilla :

Yup.

In reply to frenchyd :

They banned alcohol 150 years after the founding of the country. You talked about limitation on amendments and specifically the founding fathers, so I assumed you where referencing limitations to the early amendments. I am still curious about the specific things and limitations you were refering to.

So I have to prove my innocence to drive? No, I don't condone that at all. What's next? Requiring us to file driving plans before we get in our cars to make sure we aren't traveling to illegal destinations? Have to provide a passenger list every time we drive to prove we aren't carrying criminals? Loading lists of all things carried?

There will always be people who abuse freedoms. Those people should answer for their crimes, not the rest of us.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

This kind of lines up with the degradation of "innocent until proven guilty." A breathalyzer like device, assumes your guilt and you must prove your innocence to operate the vehicle. In cases like these some people aren't necessarily mad about this specific case, they are mad to see how many people approve of yet more surveillance and monitoring.

You're right. Initially, I didn't think there was a big issue with making sure you're sober before operating a motor vehicle. A good safety precaution. Lots of little tech in cars do things to inhibit or dissuade you from doing dangerous vehicular activities already. But it does change the dynamic of guilt/innocence and responsibility. And not in a way that's closer to why this country was created. That's a bit scary.

It's a hard issue to deal with. On one hand, yes I'm sure it would save lives, but on the other... what's next? Where does the breadcrumb trail of lost liberties end? Bums me out, man.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

They banned alcohol 150 years after the founding of the country. You talked about limitation on amendments and specifically the founding fathers, so I assumed you where referencing limitations to the early amendments. I am still curious about the specific things and limitations you were refering to.

 

And we all know how well prohibition worked. 

mr2peak said:

So I have to prove my innocence to drive? No, I don't condone that at all. What's next? Requiring us to file driving plans before we get in our cars to make sure we aren't traveling to illegal destinations? Have to provide a passenger list every time we drive to prove we aren't carrying criminals? Loading lists of all things carried?

There will always be people who abuse freedoms. Those people should answer for their crimes, not the rest of us.

 

 

This has been a problem with the last 20-30 years. We are enacting legislation that doesn't affect most of the people that it's meant to stop. Like felons and committing crimes. If they cared abou the law they wouldn't be breaking it. Adding more laws to make it badderer than it already was isn't helping. 

Wife and I both take Zyrtec-D. Right now, with the farming pulling in the crops and dust we are taking it twice a day. We had to get a prescription because we couldn't buy it over the counter in enough quantity for both of us to last 2 weeks. Why? To stop meth production..... we see how well thats working.

z31maniac said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

They banned alcohol 150 years after the founding of the country. You talked about limitation on amendments and specifically the founding fathers, so I assumed you where referencing limitations to the early amendments. I am still curious about the specific things and limitations you were refering to.

And we all know how well prohibition is working. 

FTFY.

Duke said:

z31maniac said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

They banned alcohol 150 years after the founding of the country. You talked about limitation on amendments and specifically the founding fathers, so I assumed you where referencing limitations to the early amendments. I am still curious about the specific things and limitations you were refering to.

And we all know how well prohibition is working. 

FTFY.

 

I didn't want to bring that part of it up. Even though Portugal's model has been shown to be effective for more than 2 decades. 

bobzilla said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I dont think many of the early amendments had many limits. They all have plenty of limits now, but not really in the early days. They even took the time to include things like "shall not be infringed." Id be interested in more specifics of what you are referring to.

He didnt say anything about no one being prevented from doing anything, he said their is a large push to regulate, control and ban law abiding citizens. Youre making quite a jump there.

I also dispute your point that the state has the right to enforce their law as they see fit. What if they saw fit to station a police officer in your house and he had to follow and surveil you at all times, to ensure enforcement of said law? You would agree thats not legal, so obviously there are limits, you two just disagree on where those limits are.

This kind of lines up with the degradation of "innocent until proven guilty." A breathalyzer like device, assumes your guilt and you must prove your innocence to operate the vehicle. In cases like these some people aren't necessarily mad about this specific case, they are mad to see how many people approve of yet more surveillance and monitoring, and the movement farther away from the founding principles little by little. While this specific case may be small, I would think its easy to see how proving your innocence, is contrary to the principles this country was founded on, and its just one of thousands of examples. The response is always "it just.." or "a law abiding citizen has nothing to worry about" and here we are 20 years later and the NSA sees all the pictures of my butthole before my wife does.

I'm highlighting the part that I think most of us are arguing against. Not supporting DD.

Friendly counterpoint - that would be true if driving were a right.  It's not.  It's a privilege.  You have to (or at least supposed to) take training, take a written and driving test, get a license, and pay fees/taxes/insurance to drive as well.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

That's a valid counter point, that why I used softer words in it kind of line up with degradation of innocent until proven guilty. I assume we could agree that in spirit the over arching theme doesn't line up with founding principles even if driving is a privilege.

Now I researched this a while back and I wish I saved some quotes on the subject, so I just found a couple real quick. I wondered if the freedom of movement/travel applied to driving on public roads. It appears lawmakers and the Supreme Court have danced around the fact for quite a while, with some alluding to it may be a right through the 5th amendment.

(Spokane Vs. Port, Wn. App P.2d 945). “It is well settled that the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to travel, although it is not always clear which constitutional provision affords the protection. <snip> Freedom of movement is at the heart of our scheme of values, for it may be as keen an interest of the individual as the choice of what he reads, says, eats or wears.” 

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009.

Also don't forget the Constitution doesn't outline all of your rights, it only outlines some of the pre existing rights and is supposed to restrict the government from infringing upon them.

There is no amendment expressedly outlining my right to send sketchy pictures of myself to my wife, but I do. You have more rights than outlined in the Constitution 

I'd be willing to bet that a device like this would cause a case that ended at the Supreme Court and we'd finally get a real broad scope decision on driving on public roads as a right.

In reply to Opti :

The Constitution doesn't document rights that citizens have.

It documents rights that the government doesn't have.

In reply to frenchyd :

Exactly what we need more technology to save us from our own stupids brains because big tech and the government know better us. /sarcasm/

Driving may be a privilege but all of the arguments you are making just lead to further restrictions on said privilege.  At what point do you give up your autonomy entirely Frenchy? 

Prohibition actually reduced crime and alcohol consumption.  https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf