Should an ignition breathalyzer device be installed on every vehicle?

veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

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?
It is a slippery slope.
For instance checkpoints ,what ever happened to probable cause. Do the police just have the right to stop you because they feel like it."unreasonable searches and seizures" .Do we just start trampling over Constitution rights? Where does this end?Police can now pull you over because you where at a restaurant that serves alcohol and you may be legally intoxicated? Law enforcement entering your house because they think that maybe,possibly you are breaking the law?
It is a slippery slope.
How about this we dont make it mandatory for BAIID to be bought or find a better system than a breathalyzer that isnt going to cost the private citizen more undue hardship. And/ or Hold establishments accountable for over serving or just stop selling alcohol at restaurants,bars ,taverns,nightclubs.Think about how many of these people leave theses places on a daily basis intoxicated and get behind the wheel .I know people do it ,you know it ,the police know it, lawmakers know it........ If we didnt serve alcohol in public businesses wouldnt that would cut down on DUI deaths?Or am i going to hear that businesses would lose to much money?
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2992100
It is a slippery slope.
For instance checkpoints ,what ever happened to probable cause. Do the police just have the right to stop you because they feel like it."unreasonable searches and seizures" .Do we just start trampling over Constitution rights? Where does this end?Police can now pull you over because you where at a restaurant that serves alcohol and you may be legally intoxicated? Law enforcement entering your house because they think that maybe,possibly you are breaking the law?
It is a slippery slope.
How about this we dont make it mandatory for BAIID to be bought or find a better system than a breathalyzer that isnt going to cost the private citizen more undue hardship. And/ or Hold establishments accountable for over serving or just stop selling alcohol at restaurants,bars ,taverns,nightclubs.Think about how many of these people leave theses places on a daily basis intoxicated and get behind the wheel .I know people do it ,you know it ,the police know it, lawmakers know it........ If we didnt serve alcohol in public businesses wouldnt that would cut down on DUI deaths?Or am i going to hear that businesses would lose to much money?
The courts, at least in Michigan, have ruled that you have a reduced expectation of privacy when travelling on a public roadway. Checkpoints are fine because they are not arbitrary, nor is there any problem with prospective profiling. Where in the Constitution does it say that you can do anything you want?
Besides, there is no search and seizure if the results of the BAIID remain private.
Additionally, I think you're making another giant leap in suggesting that establishments should be responsible everytime a customer drives drunk. While there are laws to prevent establishments from serving people who are "visibly intoxicated", (Dramshop laws), this is not the same as having an unlawful blood alcohol content. Holding the establishments responsible to know exactly when a person has crossed .08 ppm of BAC would be an impossible burden to place on these businesses.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2992056
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...
Not really that difficult. If there were disposable mouthpieces, it would not be much of an issue. Honestly people, we're talking about something that may take 5 seconds or so.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
My two cents:
Every vehicle needs to be made safe form people driving drunk.
Problem: There are more sober drivers than drunk drivers. So it would be wrong to ding the good drivers to have to pay for a gadget they will never need or use.
My solution: When a drunk driver is busted and fined...take the money collected from them to pay for the mandatory gadgets installed in every vehicle. I don’t care how much money they have to be fined to pay for it. Make every dollar they will ever make in their lives be "taxed" to pay for mandatory installation of breathalyzers nationwide. They should be the ones to have to pay, not the sober responsible drivers.
I have a good friend with brain damage from her car being hit head on by a drunk driver. She now has seizures and lost the sight in one eye.
Something needs to be done, but why make those of us with some sense pay for the few who can't control themselves? Getting them off the road after the fact is little help for those of us affected by them.
So a gadget that stops the drunk before he drives is a great idea. Breath into a "gadget" if you are drunk, or have any trace of alcohol the car will not start.
 
shogun323

shogun323

Active Member
I think to reduce drunk driving we should pass a law permitting sober drivers to engage the "pit manuever" on drunk drivers. It will help keep them off the road and make driving more challenging for everyone.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2992110
Not really that difficult. If there were disposable mouthpieces, it would not be much of an issue. Honestly people, we're talking about something that may take 5 seconds or so.

But that's it, it's not "just" 5 seconds, its more like blow into it, for a steady 20 seconds, then sit back and a wait another couple moments, then wait to finally start the car. Which is another thing I said already, what about the senior citizens that drive, that can't blow that hard/long? What about them?
Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/2992122
So a gadget that stops the drunk before he drives is a great idea. Breath into a "gadget" if you are drunk, or have any trace of alcohol the car will not start.
That's another thing, what's the point of 0.08 then, if the breathalyzer doesn't allow any alcoholic readings? Don't we have to get to 0.08 to be legally drunk? I could see a bunch of people running around the parking lot, who might be at 0.09/0.10 trying to knock a couple points off..
 
yerboy

yerboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2990851
Sorry to hear about your brother.
And here is the flow to the system. What if the device would require the driver to blow after a period of driving... say 10 minutes?
Then the drunks just have to race to get home before there car shuts off.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2992107
The courts, at least in Michigan, have ruled that you have a reduced expectation of privacy when travelling on a public roadway. Checkpoints are fine because they are not arbitrary, nor is there any problem with prospective profiling. Where in the Constitution does it say that you can do anything you want?
Besides, there is no search and seizure if the results of the BAIID remain private.
What the hell is "Prospective Profiling" To me that means just assuming something because........ without probably cause. That is BS.It say no where in the Constitution i can do what ever i want,however it does tell me what my rights are and what cant be done to me.
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2992107
Additionally, I think you're making another giant leap in suggesting that establishments should be responsible everytime a customer drives drunk. While there are laws to prevent establishments from serving people who are "visibly intoxicated", (Dramshop laws), this is not the same as having an unlawful blood alcohol content. Holding the establishments responsible to know exactly when a person has crossed .08 ppm of BAC would be an impossible burden to place on these businesses.
How about bartenders be required to give patron a breathalyzer test before serving a customer or letting them leave the establishment?
Ill Answer that for you ,because its as likely to happen as having BAIID forced upon people without cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top