NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

Duke said:

In reply to Opti :

The Constitution doesn't document rights that citizens have.

It documents rights that the government doesn't have.

 

That is a much better way to put it

frenchyd said:

Opti said:

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.

That is well and carefully argued.   With one fundamental problem.  Driving is a privilege not a right.  A privilege  given to you by the state not the constitution. 
 You are still free to travel. Planes trains taxi buses  etc. 

Duke said:

In reply to Opti :

The Constitution doesn't document rights that citizens have.

It documents rights that the government doesn't have.

Driving as a Privilege is a legal fiction created by Statists.   Statists are people who think Rights are conferred on people by the State. 

Is being a barber a privilege because they need to be licensed?   How about a doctor?    

Fueled by Caffeine said:

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

*Al Capone has joined the chat*

In reply to frenchyd :

Plenty of court decisions disagree with you, and even go as far as saying specifically use of the public roads is a right. The arguement is still ongoing and hotly debated, including very recent cases involving the 4th amendment, as to the degree of restrictions allowed and rights compromised by using them.

A very recent case revolved around exactly this subject "warrantless breathalyzer tests." IIRC it was allowed in the name of expediency, but multiple justices dissented mentioning exactly what the opponents here are saying.

In reply to frenchyd :

Your making another huge jump. All he says is that driving is a right, you equate that to a right with ZERO limitations. We have almost zero rights without limitations. Pretty much all the courts have upheld that licensing is legal. 

In reply to frenchyd :

The slippery slope argument is valid in any instance when someone is proposing additional laws, restrictions, impediments, etc. on any rights or privileges.  It is awfully naive to think that the slippery slope is just a metaphor touted by the tinfoil hat people.  

I'm not sure that this is a bad idea......getting more drunks off the roads before they kill someone else can't be a bad thing, can it?

MiniDave said:

I'm not sure that this is a bad idea......getting more drunks off the roads before they kill someone else can't be a bad thing, can it?

Exactly 50% of people that get killed by drunk drivers are worse than average...in fact, 1% of them are at the 100th percentile on the horrible scale.

In reply to MiniDave :

You're saying 2 different things. 1:This and 2:getting more drunks off the road. 1 is trying to accomplish 2, but that doesn't make them the same. 

If I said we should execute every drunk driver on the side of the road without trial and followed it up with, it's good let's get more drunks off the road.

No one disagrees with getting more drunks off the road, many people disagree with certain tactics, and in this case the assumption of guilt, or the additional surveillance, or whatever their reason may be

z31maniac said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

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

*Al Capone has joined the chat*

The perception is that it didn't work due to a sensational media. But the data dosent lie. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

z31maniac said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

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

*Al Capone has joined the chat*

The perception is that it didn't work due to a sensational media. But the data dosent lie. 
 

This discussion is not about just reducing the number of drunk drivers. It's about whether gains from the interlock tech outweigh the costs- both in dollars and freedom. Prohibition was used as an example because it was a great cost with little payback. The study that you linked just showed a modest decrease in consumption, with the author acknowledging the difficulties in sourcing reliable data. They also mentioned that there was no way to track people drinking in their homes and could not track the illegal supply chain. So it's a really rough educated guess. I could have told you that if you take any product, increase the cost, reduce supply, and make it illegal- that you would get a drop in consumption. That's before I add in the wrinkle that I'll share below. This study does not address any drop in crime. 
 

A couple posts above, an extreme example was introduced of executing drunk drivers on the side of the road to reduce drunk driving. But we would never really do such a thing, right? Right? During prohibition, the federal government did something pretty similar. It purposely introduced poisoned alcohol sources into the illegal supply chain, murdering thousands. The purpose of this was to discourage drinking not just through law, but by blinding or killing those who broke the law as an example. 

Did the government purposely poison drinkers?
 

Well, if the tech works, then it works - right?

IOW, if the car won't start because it detects alcohol in the driver, then you've kept a drunk driver off the road, right?

That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating killing drunks or anything else, I'm only saying that if this would work, it might help.

Pls don't build cars that I couldn't pull into my garage from my driveway if there's a hailstorm or something just because I've had some beers. Thx.

frenchyd said:

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.

Show/hide post

 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

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. 

 

We already have to wear seatbelts,  buy new cars with air bags, start the car in Neutral, headlights, etc etc etc. 

 Your state can and does make you conform to all sorts of things in order to have the Privilege  of driving.  
  Sorry a privilege isn't a right. No one is taking any bodies freedom.  
 What you should be grateful  for is, if you blow drunk you won't get a ticket, just not be able to drive drunk. 
 

 

I keep upvoting your posts so they can be read.  I don't agree, but I believe in freedom of speech too.  You also replied to my post twice.  Why should I bother?  
 

Like many today, you are 110% onboard with any totalitarian BS anyone can dream up.  I personally find it ironic how the hippie generation has turned into a bunch of totalitarian jerks.  I thought that's what your generation was against?
 

You can take your totalitarian ways and shove it.  I'm not doing it.  
 

And yes freedom to travel is a right!  The Constitution placed no limits on freedom of travel, people did that after the fact.  You'll want people licensed to ride big wheels at this rate, and skateboards.  

When people mess up others lives, they need to be held individually responsible. Society isn't wholly responsible for the evil actions of individuals.  No law will ever stop evil.  As a matter of fact, it'd be pretty easy to correlate more laws = more evil in this country.  

BlueInGreen - Jon said:

Pls don't build cars that I couldn't pull into my garage from my driveway if there's a hailstorm or something just because I've had some beers. Thx.

GPS tie-in fixes that.  The law says you can't drive on a public roadway while drunk.  It doesn't say anything about driveways or garages.

I mean, seriously... if we have technology that uses infrared sensors in a steering wheel to determine BAC, surely it could tie in with GPS technology which has been around since the 1960s.

Not trying to change your mind or make any waves as I totally respect your opinion, just saying that some of the arguments here (on both sides) can be a little obtuse and attempt to attribute a complexity to it that doesn't need to exist.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

BlueInGreen - Jon said:

Pls don't build cars that I couldn't pull into my garage from my driveway if there's a hailstorm or something just because I've had some beers. Thx.

GPS tie-in fixes that.  The law says you can't drive on a public roadway while drunk.  It doesn't say anything about driveways or garages.

I mean, seriously... if we have technology that uses infrared sensors in a steering wheel to determine BAC, surely it could tie in with GPS technology which has been around since the 1960s.

Not trying to change your mind or make any waves as I totally respect your opinion, just saying that some of the arguments here (on both sides) can be a little obtuse and attempt to attribute a complexity to it that doesn't need to exist.

GPS only works as well as what's programmed. David's house isn't on the GPS maps, what then? He suffers because someone else can't take responsibility?

Many drunk drivers take responsibility, but doing so after causing a fatal crash doesn't really help much.  Many drunks are at a point where its not something they can comprehend anyway.  Its kind of like discussing gun control with mass shooters.  Personal responsibility isn't even on the table at that point because those people are prepared to die.

I also don't see this as "guilty until proven innocent".  Its a prevention system, it locks you car/slows it down/whatever (undefined at this point), it isn't arresting you, reporting you to police, etc.  

Similarly, I don't see anyone "suffering" as a result of this.  Yes, there are issues that would need to be accounted for (as Jon brought up above), and it needs to be reliable.  If I have it in a car and it prevents me from driving because I have had to much to drink, its a win.  If I have it in a car and it doesn't do anything because I haven't had anything to drink... it has zero impact on me.

In reply to ProDarwin :

So, what about when you have it in a car and it prevents you from driving when you're stone cold sober and haven't had a drink in days?

Don't pretend that isn't going to happen.

frenchyd said:

...I mean when is the last time an air bag went off in your face without the required accident...

Umm...

Thanks to Takata, airbags are probably a poor choice as an example in your argument.

In reply to frenchyd :

I keep asking you how the forefathers wanted these limits on the amendments and for sources. You are the one who said read what the forefathers wrote, and so again I ask for some sources, so maybe I can understand your perspective better