Quote :

"The threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working in the struggle to reduce the death toll, officials say, and they are proposing turning to technology — alcohol detection devices in every vehicle — to address the problem."

http://tinyurl.com/swdp6


I understand putting the things in cars of first offenders but in every car? If we can make cheap test kits why not test for all the illegal drugs you can before driving?

Do other countries have as much of a problem with drunk driving?

11/20/2006 11:04:35 PM

I'm all for it. I would hate to die because of a drunk driver.

11/20/2006 11:08:35 PM

Seems sensible to me.

11/20/2006 11:13:56 PM

^^^ australia has a zero tolerance policy... you blow .0 anything and they send your ass to jail... and it's very effective

11/20/2006 11:34:17 PM

that's retarded.

11/20/2006 11:35:27 PM

does this mean they're going to lower the drinking age?

11/20/2006 11:48:35 PM

i thought about this years ago

making a key or some type of detection device to make it where the car wont start if its above a certain degree

problem is almost impossible to enforce

motorcycles, old cars etc.
and the fact it would be easy to turn off

11/20/2006 11:50:50 PM

Just save a sober breath in a plunger type device, pump breath into detector, profit.

11/20/2006 11:53:46 PM

but what about those people who then drive....i have seen the commercial where the potheads run over the girl who is riding the back right in front of the drivethru

11/20/2006 11:59:08 PM

^You know they changed their stance.

Pot does nothing but make you sit on the couch for hours at a time.

11/21/2006 12:02:08 AM

I've done some drunk driving in my life.

I currently feel that the solution to drunk driving lies in the Alcohol Industry being forced to pay for efficient and quick taxi-cab service for anyone who wanted it no matter their age or location.

Thus making Alcohol much more expensive than it is today - but pretty much allowing you to morally throw the book, the ass pounding, and then some at anyone who drove while intoxicated.

11/21/2006 12:05:01 AM

zero tolerance is the best solution.

11/21/2006 12:06:08 AM

Agreed. I would say hang the bastards for their first offense, but that won't happen. Five years in prison probably could, though.

11/21/2006 12:26:14 AM

so how much are we going to piss on the bill of rights in this thread?

11/21/2006 12:39:52 AM

Is it not your right to be able to get back to your home from a legal activity such as drinking without endangering the lives of many innocent people?

Alcohol should continue to be a legal indulgence - but if it must *everyone* should have to pay for it to be a safe indulgence. Since history has shown that many people can't handle drinking and then driving responsibly (myself included), wouldn't the easiest answer be to have drinkers pay a moderate 'taxi tax' on their beverages to continue to exercise their right?

Is paying more for something truly pissing on your right to do it?

11/21/2006 12:46:59 AM

so should we also have a cell phone tax, an old person tax, a short person tax, an old car tax, a woman tax, a cold weather tax? History has show that all of those things can cause accidents so why dont we find a way to tax this so people can continue to exercise their right to drive.

drunk driving is against the law and if you get caught doing it then you're in trouble. Theres no point in adding abunch of nonesense taxes to go along with it.

11/21/2006 12:51:00 AM

It's a matter of degree and level of personal choice - do the number of cell phone using, old, short, old car driving, female, or cold weather driving people have the same chance of causing accidents that kill, maim, or otherwise ruin the lives of people as people who choose to drink and drive do? Do they have the same responsibility to choose not to be old and drive as someone who chooses to take 10 shots of tequila and get behind the wheel does? Several of these things you listed could hardly even be considered a choice when you consider the almost neccessary requirement of being able to drive in our socieity.

How about if you proposed that we should hang someone if they commit murder and then I asked you that as long as we are hanging people for murder why shouldn't we hang someone for jaywalking, parking in a handicap spot, speeding, animal cruelty, or being old? Why all this nonsense unneccessary hanging?

PS - That statement about Drunk Driving being against the law and if you get caught you are in trouble is bullshit. I know several personal friends who got DUIs and got away essentially scot free. I have seen throughout my entire life in this country news stories of someone who killed a pregnant woman while drunk driving who got out of several DUIs before. It's getting to the point with lawyers and judges in many states/municipalities that it's about as against the law as speeding.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 1:27 AM. Reason : PS]

11/21/2006 12:59:42 AM

Quote :

"drunk driving is against the law and if you get caught doing it then you're in trouble. Theres no point in adding abunch of nonesense taxes to go along with it."

Over fifty percent of DUI charges in North Carolina result in nothing--no programs, no convictions, no nothing. Every year, they say they're going to get stricter and whatnot, but they don't.

11/21/2006 1:47:57 AM

thought this was about me and that sober guy

11/21/2006 2:04:53 AM

thought nobody knows what you're talking about or gives a shit

(Seriously, man.)

11/21/2006 2:05:45 AM

ya i know

i'm all emo and shit right now

11/21/2006 2:10:58 AM

I have a major, Big Brother Problem with this. I mean, sure you're going to say "If you're not drunk, it won't make a difference" but then the same people who say that will jump down someone else's throat when they suggest "If you're not guilty, why do you care about constant surveillance or wire taps..."

Not that I think you have any right to drive drunk, but this not a step I'd like to take. As with drugs, we need to address the root causes of drunken driving and/or make a stiffer penalty so that people who drive drunk habitually spend time in jail.

11/21/2006 7:02:42 AM

Well other cases of guilt deal with actual privacy. This deals with a specific kind of privacy -- that being, keeping how much you've drank a secret. I think this is sensible.

11/21/2006 7:18:26 AM

Well, shouldn't we also put speed-detection devices in the vehicle to keep us from breaking that law? After all, speed contributes to more accidents than alcohol (blind assumption for argumentative purposes)

11/21/2006 7:19:39 AM

You might have good reason to break the speed limit law.

Name a good reason to drive drunk.

11/21/2006 7:21:14 AM

Putting this in ever car is

1) too costly
2) pointless as the majority of people driving don't drink and drive
3) complete violation of rights.
4) How would you address motocycles?

Look I know it's a problem but the solution isn't to punish everyone, you need to focus on repeat offenders. Make it not worth it to drink and drive. Drink and drive? Lost your lisence and your car. Did you know in NC they can take your car for that? They just don't enforce it.

First offense (with no wreck or anyone hurt) - 50 hours community service, class or counseling in drinking responsible, 1 month suspension of lisence. This usally deters most from doing it and prevents the rest from repeating a simple mistake.

Second offense (with no wreck or anyone hurt) - 200 hours community service, 2nd level class or counseling in drinking responsible, 6 month suspension of license. Possible jailtime

Third offense OR anyone is hurt as a result of you - 2 minimum years jailtime (if someone is hurt other charges apply that add to jailtime. So don't think this is light) . This can be work release type where you live at the jail and can work. 1 year loss of license and up to 5 years.

I ALSO believe that everyone should get a license that says if they are allowed to drink or not. This wouldn't affect normal people since we would just renew at the normal time, but for offenders who have to get a new license everytime they have an offense it would make it hard for them to get alcohol unless a friend helps. Most drunks don't have friends that help.

Just my thoughts, though the new ID for drunks would make it difficult on those that have to look at licenses unless you make it neon in color. Of course... that would be an embarassment to those people so some liberal nut wouldn't want them to feel embarassed and the law wouldn't pass.

11/21/2006 7:22:15 AM

Quote :

"Name a good reason to drive drunk. "

Name a good reason to speed and I'll say it is also a good reason to drive drunk. If it is because you are on the way to a hospital for an emergency that could not wait for an ambulance, I don't see how being drunk should make it any less of an emergency. Otherwise, I don't know any legitimate reasons to speed. Being late late late for a very important date notwithstanding.

11/21/2006 7:23:52 AM

Quote :

"3) complete violation of rights. "

Boo hoo I've lost my God-given right to needlessly and egregiously danger everybody on the road!

Quote :

"Name a good reason to speed and I'll say it is also a good reason to drive drunk. If it is because you are on the way to a hospital for an emergency that could not wait for an ambulance, I don't see how being drunk should make it any less of an emergency. Otherwise, I don't know any legitimate reasons to speed. Being late late late for a very important date notwithstanding."

Let's see, when you're merging. When you're passing. When you're getting out of the way of something. In the case of an emergency.

If you had to speed off drunk in an emergency, it would HAVE to wait for an ambulance. Sorry. That's what happens when you put yourself in the situation where nobody's sober.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 7:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 7:24:36 AM

Nevermind that an internal alcohol sensor reeks of Big Brother-esque control to me, but how would you keep these sensors from misreading if there is, say, some sort of mixture in the car that contains ethanol as one of its ingredients such as colognes and things like that? Someone suggested wiring this sensor to the car such that it won't start if it detects any. If the car can't tell the difference between you wearing English Leather and you having had fix forties, doesn't that make it kind useless?

11/21/2006 7:26:56 AM

Quote :

"Nevermind that an internal alcohol sensor reeks of Big Brother-esque control to me"

Because preventing people from drunk driving is a step closer to thought police.

11/21/2006 7:28:33 AM

That's a strawman argument and you know it. I'm not saying the government can't make it illegal to drink and drive, I just don't think that installing a sensor in everyone's car is the most constitutionally-sound way to do it.

11/21/2006 7:30:29 AM

So you are opposing attempted prevention here, in the case where the only privacy that could possibly be "violated" is your privacy to get away with a dangerous, heinous crime.

11/21/2006 7:32:11 AM

Quote :

"Let's see, when you're merging. When you're passing. When you're getting out of the way of something. In the case of an emergency."

None of those are good reasons to speed besides the emergency.

You are breaking the law in every case. Sorry, that is how it is. What, are you against legislation to prevent you from exercising your right to break the law?

11/21/2006 7:39:51 AM

whatever they do, some nerd will hack it and post it on the internet

11/21/2006 7:42:21 AM

Lets put the type of speed cameras they have in Europe on American roads so pretty much no matter where you speed you will get a ticket for speeding.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 7:44 AM. Reason : That will makes things much safer.]

11/21/2006 7:44:08 AM

__Off topic anecdote that I will spin into a topical post__
A friend of mine, who drove drunk because he was a douchebag, got a DUI 6 days before his 21st birthday. Because of that, even though he didn't get through with court until he was nearly 22, they gave him a sensor in his car. Becuase he was under 21 when he received the DUI, they set it at 0.00 for 1 year. That thing was so sensitive it wouldn't have let me drive after a swig of wine at mass, even if I rinsed my mouth. Once he drank with me and some friends until about midnight and then we went to sleep. When he woke up the next morning he still blew a 0.03 and couldn't crank his car to drive to work. We had to call a sober friend to come blow in his car at 7:00 am so it would crank. He worked a 6 hour shift and then got in his car and couldn't crank the fucker because he blew a 0.01. Thus, he had to get someone to blow in his car so he could go home.
__end anecdote__

Of course these would be set at the legal limit, but what about for minors? They aren't allowed to drive with ANY amount of alcohol in them, but do we have to let them slide for this? I mean, you can't very well also determine age before you do this unless we're issuing scanable national IDs.

11/21/2006 7:48:41 AM

Quote :

"None of those are good reasons to speed besides the emergency. You are breaking the law in every case. Sorry, that is how it is. What, are you against legislation to prevent you from exercising your right to break the law?"

What are you talking about? There are cases where you have to blur the speed limit law in order to drive safely. If you suggest you drive at and only at the speed limit the entire time you're on, say, the highway, you're making things unsafe. Sometimes you have to accelerate past people (some people don't drive the speed limit), and sometimes you have to merge into traffic that's already going the speed limit or faster. Don't be stupid.

This isn't a slippery slope and I think it's funny how far some Libertarianesque folks will go to protect... uh... well something?

11/21/2006 8:17:43 AM

I know it has become an accepted custom to speed when passing other vehicles, but it isn't the law. You are breaking the law when you exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph. No one will write you a ticket, but it doesn't make it legal.

11/21/2006 8:21:36 AM

Yes you're right you should go no faster than the speed limit ever.

No opportunity ever presents itself on the highway where it makes sense to break the speed limit. Ever.

How the fuck do you pass this off as a serious analogy to drunk driving without cracking up? Are you pulling my leg?

11/21/2006 8:26:33 AM

We should make all cars Faraday's cages so no cellphones will work in them and make it illegal to place an antenna for cellphone reception outside the car

11/21/2006 8:59:42 AM

What the fuck does cellphones have to do with this?

Drunk driving is a clear case of some shit you shouldn't do. End of story.

11/21/2006 9:01:09 AM

I see the cellphone connection. They want to put a device in a car that prevents people from doing something unsafe - drunk driving. They want to put a device in a car that prevents people from doing something unsafe - talking on cell phones.

It wasn't hard.

11/21/2006 9:03:48 AM

Quote :

"Yes you're right you should go no faster than the speed limit ever. No opportunity ever presents itself on the highway where it makes sense to break the speed limit. Ever. How the fuck do you pass this off as a serious analogy to drunk driving without cracking up? Are you pulling my leg?"

Of course drunk driving is more of a problem than speeding, in my opinion. But if you're out to save drivers, speed is more of a factor in accidents than alcohol. So why don't we simply curtail the speeding with similar devices? What you said was, breaking the law should be curtailed with the use of a device. I say, sure, go ahead, but why not also curtail an even bigger problem, which is speeding.

I'm not pulling your leg, what I'm saying is that the idea that "driving drunk is dangerous and wrong, this would stop it" would compute equally to "speeding is dangerous and wrong, this would stop it"

The point is, we don't need either of these devices, we simply need to treat the problem and punish the lawbreakers. Also, these are simple to avoid, drunk people can always have others blow in them for them so they can drive. Or are you going to have them blow every 10 miles?

11/21/2006 10:51:15 AM

If we could only outlaw every bad bit of human behavior then we'll have created the perfect State, right?

Although, having a breathalizer in my car would give me a peace of mind on nights when I've had a beer or so. Let me know to chill and wait a couple hours before driving or not drive at all.

11/21/2006 10:58:51 AM

Quote :

"Man I feel really drunk I wonder if I can drive? *Blow* ..... 0.07 You are good to drive Sweet I'm going to drive home now"

10 min later the guy plows into a family of pregnant nuns and kittens.

THE CAR SAID HE COULD DRIVE!!!!!!

11/21/2006 11:18:28 AM

i support a zero tolerance policy.

blow 0.0+ and you go to jail for 1 year minimum. no exceptions. no parole.

second offense, 5 years.

third offence, life.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 11:23 AM. Reason : s]

11/21/2006 11:23:43 AM

mehh i retract.

but this thread really pisses me off

drinking and driving is bad

but this level of government control is worse

↑ and so is his style of thinking.



[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 11:37:34 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying is that the idea that "driving drunk is dangerous and wrong, this would stop it" would compute equally to "speeding is dangerous and wrong, this would stop it""

Wrap your head around this: driving drunk is always dangerous and wrong. Speeding is not always dangerous and wrong.

11/21/2006 12:33:20 PM

^^ asians and women are more dangerous behind the wheel than i am shitfaced drunk

11/21/2006 12:33:52 PM

^^ So should we enact a similar law towards people who drive while talking on their cd phones? Both serious affect a persons ability to drive.

and I know people who just out right suck at driving. Maybe we should test them every 6 months and if they fail we take them to jail because they obviously are endangering the lives of those around them.


now with this being said I have no problem enforcing the laws currently in the books and if they dont then theres very little I can do. Excoriator is on his way to a police state. tnx

oh also using mouthwahs makes you blow above a 0.0

11/21/2006 12:36:49 PM