Should an ignition breathalyzer device be installed on every vehicle?

t316

t316

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2991633

What would keep people from farting into the meter? What would it register? Dude, you had burritos...

It would register a fart, from me mainly, which would shut off the engine and unlock the windows and doors for them. Right now when it happens, I lock the windows in the up position and just
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by T316
http:///forum/post/2991736
It would register a fart, from me mainly, which would shut off the engine and unlock the windows and doors for them. Right now when it happens, I lock the windows in the up position and just

once again...
...............
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by T316
http:///forum/post/2991736
It would register a fart, from me mainly, which would shut off the engine and unlock the windows and doors for them. Right now when it happens, I lock the windows in the up position and just

Your family may purchase the optional "007" ejection seat .
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Oh man... this thread took an ugly turn somewhere. Have to admit that I've lost some faith in humanity. You all are so resistant to any minor infringement in your everyday requirements that it doesn't matter if it would save lives.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991911
Oh man... this thread took an ugly turn somewhere. Have to admit that I've lost some faith in humanity. You all are so resistant to any minor infringement in your everyday requirements that it doesn't matter if it would save lives.
Banning alcohol would save lives...Ban it!
Oh, you're a drinker so I supose I will hear how that just won't work.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991911
Oh man... this thread took an ugly turn somewhere. Have to admit that I've lost some faith in humanity. You all are so resistant to any minor infringement in your everyday requirements that it doesn't matter if it would save lives.
I was waiting for you to pick up where we left off
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2990942
See herein lies my issue with your position. You don't want to submit to the inconvenience of a breathalyzer but would rather prohibit all alcohol because it doesn't affect you. This is basically your position. What ever happened to sacrificing (if you can even call it that) for the greater good? Would you blow into a breathalyzer if you knew that it would save a life? It seems that we, as a society, have become so selfish and callous that any minor inconvenience to us is unthinkable, even if it means that thousands of families will not have to bury their children, or siblings, or parents. Maybe I'm too naive but I'd hope that we are better people than that.
On that note, I'm off... will read why I am completely wrong and full of it tomorrow.


Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2990944
The answer seems clear to me unless you want people to blow into a BAIID Device to be unchained from their beds.
When you mention sacrifice ,who should be the one making the sacrifice?And really what is the greater good ,drinking or not?
How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year?
# 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
# 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
# 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
# 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
# 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
# 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm
.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/2990489
One small issue there are MEDICAL conditions such as kedio Acidoisis that make a persons breath smell as if they are drunk when they are not.
Ketoacidosis does not smell like alcohol BTW.
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
not really Crimz.....its just that it won't work. If there is a will there is a way.
We can't even get the States to communicate with each other about DWI/DUI offenders re-apply for drivers licenses. Just last month a family of 3 travling to STL for a funeral were killed by someone driving with a revoked license.
What about the older cars? There are so many ways around this device ( I can think of a few, but I am sure for the right amount of $$$ there will be lots of ways)
Most states can't even keep up with the "3 strikes" law. Jails/prisons too full for these offenders. Look at the professional sports player (my personal pet peeve is Lenord Little) who never spend a minute behind bars after killing someone while under the influence.
Its maddening.....!!!!
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
So all I've really read is that we shouldn't have the interlock device but should instead just prohibit all alcohol. Well can we all agree that, whether that's a good idea or not, it's simply not going to happen? If you take that as a given, what's the problem with the device. Yes, there may be ways around it. However there are ways for the technology to keep pace with the criminals. Whether it be disposable mouthpieces and strict laws about having one on every car driven (whether old or not), even if not all drunk driving would be eliminated, it would definitely be reduced.
The fact is that this device is already being successfully used with many OWI offenders who have mainained their driving privileges. In reality, in Michigan at least, anyone driving on a public road has "impliedly consented" to being subjected to breathalyzers upon request. Checkpoints have been consistently upheld to locate drunk drivers. You could also argue that this is treating everybody like a criminal. But I think, legally speaking, this is not a serious infringement on people's rights... and even if it was, the public interest would far outweigh the potential infringement.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991940
the public interest would far outweigh the potential infringement.
Obviously not. Haven't you been paying attention to the responses?
Where does this end?
Will big brother have to come to the potty with me?
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2991943
Obviously not. Haven't you been paying attention to the responses?
Where does this end?
Will big brother have to come to the potty with me?

A bit of a stretch, don't you think. Slippery slope arguments are fun, aren't they?
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991951

A bit of a stretch, don't you think. Slippery slope arguments are fun, aren't they?
This would have to be squeezed in with some law that we could not refuse in order to get passed. If it's put to the people, we would crush it like a grape.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991940
However there are ways for the technology to keep pace with the criminals.

I disagree with this statement right here. Here is why. Here in Albuquerque Our "glorious" mayor has installed red light cameras. We have a major problem with people running red lights, I am not talking by a few seconds, I am talking flat out three cars in a row going through the red light. So they installed these cameras...while they were at it the install speed cameras at these intersections as well.
Sounds like a good idea...correct. The Jury is still out. several things. First and foremost these lights turn yellow the guy in front of you is SLAMMING on his brakes you best be ready as well. the city changed the 4 second yellow time down to 2.5 seconds. (gonna get more revenue you know). Thus rear end accidents have increased significantly at these inter sections.
Next problem, you get mailed a ticket in the mail with a picture of your car in the intersection, your license plate, and your posted speed. with a court date. So my question is, where is the proof I was driving. There is none...it is circumstantial. If you take it to court you don't get a judge, you get a glorified "traffic cop.magistrate" or some such. Unless you provide info on who was driving your car you get the fine...no court proceeding, no judge hearing, nothing. The burden of proof is on me, not the city.
And the real kicker, there is a clear spray paint that blurs your license plate in the camera when sprayed with it. We have had these lights for 4 years and the technology has not caught up with the spray paint.
So in the interest of "public" safety my rights have been infringed to a degree and the "true criminal" can still continue doing what they were, not to mention accidents increased....
Crimzy the idea is decent in theory, but in real world situation I think it needs re thought...to many what if's I think for most in this crowd.
I have an Idea, lets go back to horse and buggy.....I am sure the Amish economy could use a stimulus package boost as well.
 
lovethesea

lovethesea

Active Member
how is that driver affected when traveling to another state? We can't even prevent Doctors/Dentists etc. who have lost their privileges from practicing in other areas. What about convicted pediphiles released? Sexual offenders?
It is a very tangled web. Communication is key, but is the government willing to invest in the info technology to link every convicted person through every state?
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2991911
Oh man... this thread took an ugly turn somewhere. Have to admit that I've lost some faith in humanity. You all are so resistant to any minor infringement in your everyday requirements that it doesn't matter if it would save lives.
Not at all. I think you're just overreacting a little, based on the theory in your head that this device is some magical 'end-all' to DUIs.
The whole point why these devices will never work is their lack of practicality. You are suppose to wear a seatbeat, but the car still operates without one buckled in. You're suppose to have a catalytic converter on my car, but if I cut mine out, who's ever gonna know? There is no practical why for a repair shop or car wash place to work with one of these breathalyzers every time they had to move a car. Christ, could you manage a car dealer that has to regularly move 100+ cars in a day, what a nightmare this would be? Lastly, they really is no way to enforce it so that older cars have to have some device installed. Name one requirement, that has not 'grandfathered-in' older cars? Seatbeats, emission systems, etc, all old cars didn't have to change a thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top